GLOBAL WARMING IS ONE BIG SCAM.

This isn't news or atleast shouldn't be to many.  Its just a power and money shifting machine.

In the 70's they said we were headed for an ice age. How did it change so fast?

Interesting article, Col George.

It didn't change just the tune they were singing.

The earth is also flat and gravity is a hoax too.

Sean you have some funny ideas.  Are you a member of the Flat Earth Society?

Sean...you hear about the lead researcher for EPA that reported that the earth has cooled 2 degrees in the last 5 years and that G.W. was bunk?

Col... another great article. i give you a 10
~M 

Bet he lost his job for not going along with "climate change"

Good article Col George. Thank you for keeping us informed. To you point of view.

Thanks Col., YEP, I'M SURE SUSPICIOUS!

Yes, but what do the majority conclude?

The majority who think conclue Global Warming is a hoax

Except for the majority of Climatologists who think.  Those folks conclude Global Warming is real... AND Anthropogenic in significant part.  Dr. Singer is an Exxon whore.

Do you have access to one of Singer's paychecks from Exxon Chuck

hey chuck! What about the EPA (see above) (or google it yourself)
~M 

Thanks, I'm very suspicious of all this global warming hype, seems to be more political than anything. I think the sun and its sunspot cycles are the main causes of climate change.

I  haven't heard from the Astronomers on this subject.  They are  the ones who would know about sun spots.   The only thing I have read said sun spots do affect the temp on earth and the weather.

That's right Charles.   It is also necessary to our existance.

Yup, and Belladonna is a cure for hyperacidity (and for life if you take too much).

... you are (once again) spot on George!

George, when I was in school I took a class called "Political Science". It had a lousy prof and I didn't get much out of it.

But, as I see all of these scientists bend the rules and alter the data to fit their liberal opinions on "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" or "Whatever they're calling it this week" ...

... I'm beginning to catch on to this "Political Science" stuff.

Yeah now that you mention it.

Col, Fred Singer has authored reports for the tobacco industry stating that tobacco is not harmful to people.  Ditto on reduced ozone.  It is hard for me to take him seriously.

I do take Dr. Paul seriously but he's sharing an article that he didn't personally research.  Of the 31,478 scientists only 39 could be considered climate scientists.  I have more education than some of the alleged scientist and a B.S. in Engineering or Geology isn't impressive.

It is a strange thing Ron but every time I find a post from a Climatologist someone comes up with a claim that man worked for tobaco companies.

Of that 31,478 scientists over 3,000 were climatoligists. acording to one of your previous posts.

As to tobaco,  I fail to see how the fact that tobaco is not as dangerous as the environmentalists claim has a thing to do with it.    I've had doctors claim smoking is responsable for every thing from falling hair to ingrown toe nails.  If it is so bad why do I personally know so many doctors and nurses who smoke?

George you have really fallen of the edge.

In what way Robert?

If it is so bad why do I personally know so many doctors and nurses who smoke?

Because you know a lot of doctors and nurses who are fools.

Actually this is a subject for another article.  However when it comes to seconhand smoke it is all smoke and air.   Secondhand smoke is not all that harmful if you think about it for a moment.  Our lungs are self cleaning according to every doctor I have talked to.  If I quit smoking my lungs would clear up.  Why don't they clear up from seconhand smoke?  The harmfull effects of secondhand smoke can only come from constantly being in a smoke filled environment with no ventalation.  That is only logic.

That is a whole other topic, isn't it?  I read an article by a doctor the other day who said that tobacco is not harmful.  He pointed to the fact that people have been smoking it for hundreds of years without getting lung cancer or mouth cancer or throat cancer.  Good point.  He also said that what does cause us problems are the additives that the tobacco companies now use.  Those are the cancer causing things.  He suggested that anyone who wanted to smoke should buy cigarettes made by Native Americans, because they don't add all the junk (like ammonia!) to them.

There is a restaurant where old news stories are plastered all over the walls and the tables around the eating area. They tout the benefits of smoking: cures asthma, helps coughs, etc. Unbelievable knowing what we do now. Most likely when the newspapers were written, some doctors and scientists knew it was all propaganda to sell the cancer/heart disease sticks.

Scientists are people. Some will make up stuff, some will get things wrong. Remember 'Pilt Down Man?'

If someone has cancer, the surgeon will say: cut it out; the radiologist will say zap it out and the oncologist will say use chemicals to sicken it to death. Each one advocates according to their own views.

This is also true of scientists in the field of climatology, geology, etc. Each person must take in the evidence and make up their own mind.

I had heard this report on television. Sometimes the lone voice is the clearest.

When Manhattan is under water, I will see if you are still on Gather to ask you if the global warming was a scam...

Is there some reason I should care if Manhattan is under water?

"Is there some reason I should care if Manhattan is under water?"

Only if you have a sense of humanity.

A.  Manhattan island is not going to be under water.

B.  The only reason I would care is if a bunch of the residents moved to Montana

C.  The hype about the oceans rising 3 feet is pure bull even if ever cc of ice in both poles melted it would not raise the level of the oceans enough to notice.

New York is the HOME of several million and is the capitol of the world!

New York is the capitol of the world?   Not likely.

Col. George, sea levels are rising, the arctic ice cap is melting and CO2 levels are rising.  Climate change will have huge economic and political implications.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618143950.htm

http://www.icrisat.org/Media/2007/media14.htm

Good,  Water and food for plants.

LOL Global Warming is such a hoax. And the fools just line up to support it.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/07/weather_experts_predicting_coo.html

Now the experts here are showing legitamate facts. CO2 has shown through ice core samples to preceed a cooling, and yes sometimes an Ice Age. The Poles have actually increased their Ice Mass, yet the fools believe that is is melting. Summers are getting cooler, and wintrers longer, yet the fools are still believing in Global Warming. When will these idiots wake up!

Especially this year.  It is July and we have had very little warm weather.  It should be up in the 80s or low 90s by now and it seldom gets to 80 at all.

yea!

Obama is an illegal alien, Obama went to a Madrasa,WMD's, they will greet us as liberators, there is no global warming.

All LIES from NewsMAx.

Check this out http://www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer

Singer sold out to Exxon, and cheap too at $20,000, a bargain for Exxon.

" Mr Singer is a renouned climatoligist, professer of enviromental sciences emeritus at U of Virginia."

Yep sure enough a man with those kind of credentials is going to lie his head off for a few bucks.  NOT

Maybe you should do some research on desmogblog.com.  I would bet it is either a Democrat or Environmentalist publication.

As to Secondhand smoke.  He was right.  The only time secondhand smoke would be harmful is in a closed environment with no ventalation system.  That secondhand smoke hype is pure horse pucky. 

George I'm beginning to think you may be just a stupid old man.

'jever notice whenever a liberal runs out of ways to try to convince us they are right they resort to name calling?

You may be right, Rude D., how can we know if Obama is  not an illegal alien if he hides his long form birth cirtificate and other records from us?

Wow!!!

Read that article, SINGER IS A HUGE FRAUD AND LIAR! WOW!!!!!!!

http://www.desmogblog.com/s-fred-singer

Perfect for NewsMax.

Yep thats how he became a renouned climatoligist, professer of enviromental sciences emeritus at U of Virginia. 

RudeD... open your eyes. If the earth is getting COOLER...how does global WARMING exist? Lets not argue the semantics. Cooler...not hotter. Sorta makes the global WARMING thing sound a bit stupid. 

~M 

Well now he's become the laughing stock of the scientific world.

He LIED and said most glaciers were growing. He knew he was LYING and thought nobody would check up on his data.

Even caught LYING about Global warming, the blind still adore him. He is a FRAUD and a LIAR whether his fanatics believe it or not!

If desmogblog.com.  is LYING they sure opened themselves up to a HUGE LAWSUIT in defaming this LIAR. I see nobody has called them LIARS.

Come on lets see the lawsuit or rebuttal/denial............. Yeah, I thought so.

I'm calling them liars Rude.  Did it occur to you to question that hit piece at all.  Probably not because it supports your conclusions.

Click on this link.  desmog is a political farce.

http://www.desmog.me

Two Words: Heartland Institute

You do the math.  You might also want to do some homework.

Thank you.  They have a great article supporting Fred Singer and others who say CO2 is not a factor.

You might want to check the batteries in your calculator; it doesn't seem to be working.  Or perhaps you missed the part about Heartland Institute's mission statement.  You know: "Heartland's mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.

Just the kind of folks I would look to for unbiased expertise on climate change.  You betcha.

Check out Fred.

I'll post my graphic this weekend.  It's very enlightening.  Seems to be some inbreeding.

Their mission statement has what to do with climate change?

"Their mission statement has what to do with climate change?"

Exactly!  The mission of Heartland Institute has absolutely nothing to do with climate change.

So why would you think that an organization whose mission is to push free markets would suddenly be an expert on climate change?

Doesn't make any sense, does it?

Of course not.  But it does suggest that they have no interest in the actual science, only in pursuing their "free markets," which could be impacted by some of the regulatory remedies being discussed.

And wow, Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen, and virtually every other "skeptic" is associated with and supported by the Heartland Institute.

Now, do you want to rethink the math?

Just maybe they don't want a political Farce to restrict free enterprise.

But Col. George, don't you see the absolute lack of logic in drawing that conclusion? The group is focused solely on promoting free markets.  They don't like cap-and-trade or taxes or any other option that might internalize all the costs they have been externalizing for decades.  And "externalize" means they have pushed those particular operating costs onto the taxpayers.  Not really so free a market from our point of view, but hey, it saves them money which they can then use for CEO incentives.  Worse, rather than see the business opportunities in this (which many companies do see), they have decided to fight the idea tooth and nail, notwithstanding the science.

Keep in mind that the group has absolutely no expertise in science, never mind climate science.  And no one would expect them to, after all, they are a business development promoter organization.   No one expects that their expertise would extend beyond that which helps promote free enterprise.  Just as no one would expect a scientific organization to suddenly start telling business organizations about how to sell widgets.

So they have hired a small handful of scientists that are willing to muddy the waters.  And it is a small handful.  Nearly every person touted as a climate skeptic scientist is associated with Heartland, and most of them are cross-bred with the other front groups that have been funded by the free market and related industries.

So relying on folks like 85 year old Singer (who lately has started admitting the climate "skeptics" aren't credible) and Lindzen (who also has backpedaled on his statements due to loss of credibility) and the Willie Soon's, Roy Spencer's and others who are pretty much not considered ethical by the scientific community, is really not a good strategy.

Good for them.  I don't like to pay more for heat and lights either.   cap and trade is a bad bill and will burden households with high expenses on a false premace of global warming.

Is is not only Heartland claiming it is wrong there are many others.

If they hired scientists how come you don't believe the other side of the issue have not?  One side of the issue is lieing and I'm betting on the global warming side to be the ones just as they were back in 1974 when then claimed we were going into an ice age.

Right now it is July, the sun is shining brightly, it is 67% at 3pm. Tell me about global warming now.

"cap and trade is a bad bill and will burden households with high expenses on a false premace of global warming."

Actually, the CBO is saying less than a dollar a day.  I didn't like lattes anyway.

"Is is not only Heartland claiming it is wrong there are many others."

You're going to love my graphic.  There really are not "many" others, and they really aren't even "others" in the correct sense of the term, given all the inbreeding.

"If they hired scientists how come you don't believe the other side of the issue have not? "

Think about it, George.  Heartland and its incestuous cousins have pulled together the handful of scientists who disagree, either scientifically or ideologically.  These handful tout single studies or a handful of studies.  Meanwhile, the consensus is based on peer review of thousands of peer-reviewed papers by thousands of scientists over 30+ years.  The sum total of all of those thousands have studies have led to the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic CO2 is significantly contributing to it.  Thousands of studies and researchers and decades versus a handful of studies supported by a free market based business organization with no expertise in climate science.

This is the part where the math gets easy.

"just as they were back in 1974 when then claimed we were going into an ice age."

You really need to stop reading Newsmax.  The "ice age" drivel was not a consensus at all.  Here's a good article that explains why making statements such as yours indicates a lack of homework on the topic.

"Right now it is July, the sun is shining brightly, it is 67% at 3pm. Tell me about global warming now."

And you really need to stop thinking that weather = climate.  I believe they start teaching that in third grade now.  But take your example.  It's sunny and 67 degrees (I assume you meant degrees and not percentage).  Does that mean tomorrow might not be sunny and 80 degrees (depending of course where you are; last week it was 85 degrees where I was on Tuesday and 96 degrees where I was on Wednesday while today it is about 55 degrees; of course, those were in three different countries).  The point is, of course, that if it is sunny today it doesn't mean it will never rain.  It's really not that difficult a concept and it just shows desperation to say something so silly.

It does mean that in Montana in July on a sunny day at 3pm it should be at least in the 80s.   Why is the sun not heating the earth like normal?  I see a cold summer here and I'm in one place not traveling all over.  Your comparrison is false just like the climate change scenerio.

George, George, George...please don't embarrass yourself further.  Weather is not climate.

Oh I guess I got that wrong David.  Global warming doen't mean the globe is getting warmer.  Excuse me.

George, George, George.  Global warming is a climate measurement, not a weather measurement.  Tomorrow might be warmer than today George.

Is that why our weatherman is a Climatoligist David?

Col... he thinks that global warming doesnt mean it actually gets warmer... HAHAHAHAHAHAA... what a baffoon! LOL.
~M 

that's what he said Michael.   If the weather is cooler it mean the climate is getting warmer.   since climate is so closely connected to weather I don't understand that but if he says so.

Climate is, in simple terms, the average of weather so a cooling cycle would lower the average thus lower the climate figure.

Robert says I'm a stupid old man.  I find it strange that every time somone publishes something against the Global Warming, Climate Change FARCE they are so dumb they could not find their way out of a lean-to.  Yet every knucklehead that publishes something agreeing with that bit of political HYPE is a genius. 

Do I detect some folks who have their mind made up and don't want to be confused by the facts?

Col. George - Credibility is the key to science and the key to being taken seriously on Gather and other writing venues.  Capitalizing bumper sticker words with no support behind them ranks right up near the top of ways to eliminate credibility.  Making other statements that are clearly not accurate also doesn't inspire confidence in analytical reasoning, judgment or veracity.

It also helps to stay away from obvious ideological blogs like NewsMax and most of the rest of the blogger "sources" that are tossed about.  Here's another hint - if you can guess almost to the detail what the article will say just by looking at the source, then the source is not reputable.  It means the source has an ideological agenda and will cherry pick its facts and its stories, spin them whichever direction fits their ideology, and spew out the most unreliable (and worthless) information possible.  These sources are designed to sell advertising, which they do by focusing on one ideology, then selling ad space to companies that benefit from that ideology, then writing severely ideologically biased articles that attract ideologues who will likely be interested in the ideological advertising.  It's a good model for enhancing ad revenues - just look at how Fox News and MSNBC get much more market share than CNN during prime time - but it's not a good model at all for presenting reliable information.

Acording to NewsMax cap and trade is DOA in the Senate.  The global warming crowd only has 34 votes and it takes 60. 

Your rant does nothing to disprove the contention that global warming is a hoax.   It is and most of our senators agree that cap and trade is a bad bill based on a false assumption.

You seem to have missed the point, George.  Whether cap-and-trade or rocket the stuff to the moon is good or bad policy is irrelevant to the science.  You cannot decide what the science is based on whether you like the possible solutions.  It doesn't work like that.

Whether you like it or not, there is a scientific consensus on this.

It would be more appropriate for the business community to help come up with a policy that does work.  Not try to game the system.

And maybe you missed the part where I explained why "According to NewsMax..." does not inspire credibility in objective reporting.

No David, you missed the point.  Cap and Trade will not pass because the bill is based on a lie.

Actually, the science is clear.

See, if you start from whether or not you like the outcome and then "decide the science" in an attempt to make your undesirable outcome go away you cannot be persuasive.  But scientific consensus is built over many years (in this case, decades) of research and evaluation and debate.  Thus, when scientific consensus is reached it signifies a robust agreement among scientists in the field.

Versus a "scientific decision" from a non-scientific free market organization that just happens to be in agreement with the free market principles that the organization prefers.

No George, clearly you have missed the point.

Whether cap-and-trade or any other climate change legislation passes will have nothing to do with the science.  It will have to do with lobbying groups like Heartland and the other pro-business groups confusing the issue enough to paralyze the Congress from taking any action.  Which, of course, is what Heartland and others want - to keep the status quo.

But again, the status quo with respect to legislation has nothing to do with the science.

I've posted now two articles writen by Climate Scientists with a large number of other scientists in the same field saying its a hoax.

I have to go along with the real scientists.  It's still a hoax and a political scam being pulled on the country.

You're right David it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with plain old political bull caca.   What's false is false no matter what you say.   Hopefully the senate will not fall for it.

Oh George, I can post articles from people who claim to be scientists who "prove" that they were abducted by aliens, Elvis is alive, and George Bush was secretly a communist.   But the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that those things are just not true.

George, consider the facts:

1) Decades of research by thousands of climate scientists documented by thousands of peer-reviewed papers,

versus

2) A handful of papers published mostly on blogs or in journals of questionable standards by a handful of scientists and pseudo-scientists and supported by free market, anti-tax groups with no scientific training or mission.

So which is likely to be the "political bull caca?"  The guy standing on the street corner insisting Elvis is alive, or the vast evidence demonstrating he died in 1977?

And in case it isn't as obvious to you as it is to everyone else, this article is the guy on the street corner.

David. You're wasting your time. George has proclaimed global warming is a farce. Never mind the fact that every major scientific organization in the world disputes that nonsense - George knows better. What did you say on another thread? "Gotta love it?"

Steve - It's clear that Col. George isn't doing any actual analysis or logical thinking here, so my goal of commenting isn't to change his mind.  It's just every so often I get caught up in the idea of seeking some logic in what people write.  I'm not sure if anyone is even reading George's stuff (I just looked at his views, seems not that many), but it is useful to any others who tune in to see an examination of the logic, or lack thereof.

For fun, I parsed the article and the actual letter in my further comments below.

As you (or I?) said, gotta love it.

Just for fun, let's parse your article:

"I base these comments on the above article.  I can quote from it but it is better to read the whole thing."

Well, it turns out that people better read the whole thing, because your interpretation of the article is incorrect.  That said, it's a NewsMax article, which on its face means that it is going to be highly biased because, well, NewsMax is highly biased, and unabashedly so.  You cannot rely on blogs for scientific information, period.

""Lawmakers who described the alleged effect of global warming are speaking a lot of 'eye wash' acording to  Fred Singer.  Mr Singer is a renouned climatoligist, professer of enviromental sciences emeritus at U of Virginia."

S. Fred Singer is 85 years old, hasn't taught or done research in years, and only uses the "emeritus" label to give himself credibility.  Sort of like ex-generals insisting on being called "General" 50 years after they left the service.  Professional integrity would suggest that a more appropriate affiliation would be "Founder of SEPP" or "speaking for the Heartland Institute."

"He and others of his ilk wrote a letter to congress debunking the Global Warming hoax presented by Woods Hole Group."

No, the letter was written by Harold Lewis, a retired professor, and signed by Singer because Heartland thought it would provide more visibility than someone who most people haven't heard of.  In total there were 7 signers to the letter that was sent to Congress and to blogs.  [Blogs? Why would reputable scientists distribute such a letter to blogs rather than to reputable journals? Hmmm]  More on what the letter actually says later (hint: debunked is not quite the right word).  One might also ask why NewsMax interviewed Singer and not Lewis, since Lewis was the actual author.

"The earth goes through periods of heating and cooling just as a lot of things fluxuate.  In fact the earth has been going through a cooling period for the last 10 years."

Yes, this is the mantra. And yet, the peer-reviewed data show otherwise.

"Singer and Richard Landzen are actually working on climate issues.  The others (Woods hole group) are renowned physicists - people  who have a good amount of scientific judgment but have not published or worked in climate research to any extent."

Actually, this is not even what the article says.  You have misquoted and/or misunderstood it.  First off, it says that Singer and Lindzen are working on climate issues.  Not that they are doing actual research, just "working on climate issues," which mostly means that they are spokespersons for the denialist industry.  Look at their records.  Secondly, the article quotes Singer in saying that other than he and Lindzen, none of the other 5 co-signers of the letter have done any actual climate research.  Which makes one wonder why they are on the letter in the first place.  Well, of course they are on the letter to suggest greater support than is actually there.  This is called subterfuge in general situations, and a lack of scientific integrity in the professional ethics circles.  By the way, nowhere in the article does it comment on the qualifications of the Woods Hole Group.  Ironically, in trying to discredit the Woods Hole Group your misinterpretation has discredited most of the signers of the letter.   This highlights why you shouldn't rely on blogs...they themselves routinely misquote, misinterpret, or intentionally misrepresent the information.  This is like taking the word of a liar because occasionally some of what he says is accurate.

For clarity, see my next comment for the actual letter written by Lewis and co-signed by Singer.  Not exactly a scientific damning of the climate change science.

Seems I missed this part of the article.

"Conclusion:  Climate Chang is a Hoax and a scam.   A very big SCAM.  Cap and Trade is a SCAM, a very big SCAM.  Second to Obama's election."

Obviously this piece speaks for itself.  It's the man on the street corner.

The part about Obama's election is also revealing.  Firstly it shows the author's political motivation.  But it also demonstrates the lack of analytical reasoning.  Clearly Obama won the election, and did so by a significantly wider margin did for example George W. Bush's first election win as well as Bush's reelection win during a time of war.  It's unclear how the author believes the election of Obama was a SCAM, a HOAX, and did I say SCAM; not that it matters, since the bumper sticker ranting eliminates any possible credibility of anything said anyway.

Still, it demonstates why the author posted this article.

Good for you if you can't deny the message deny the messinger.  Way to go David.   You proved my point by addressing the author of that piece and you never read the entire artricle.   Singer explains to two schools of thought on clamate change and says the scientic community is split between the two.  That's why I suggest reading the whole article.

I did read the whole article.  And I actually understood it.  Clearly you did not.  Try again.

Evidently you missed part of it David. 

"However, it does show you that the science is not settled. Among climate scientists there is a split. There are those who believe in models, and those who believe in observations. And there are some who don't believe in both, and some who don't believe in any.

"The modelers believe that the models correctly describe what's going on in the atmosphere, and they trust their models to predict the future. And the models all predict increased global warming. Some more, some less. There are plenty models in the world, and they all get different results. We don't know which one of them is correct, if any, or even if any of them is correct.

Then there are those - sometimes called the skeptics, but we prefer to call them the realists - who believe in the observations, who believe that the atmosphere tells us what's going on. The models try to describe what's going on in the atmosphere, but they don't succeed. It's extremely difficult - the atmosphere is very complicated. For example, the models can't really describe clouds. Yet clouds are very, very important. So that's the basic split.

"When the observations show that the climate has not been warming in the last 10 years, which contradicts the models, who are you going to believe? The models or the observations. Obviously, we believe in the observations.

"When you ask the other side to debate on this issue they either won't debate; or if they do debate, they say, Well there must be something wrong with the observations.'"

Singer agreed that it is a case of "do you believe what the models tell you, or do you believe in your lying eyes?"

You seem to have lost track of your own comments George.  But since you've veered off into something unrelated to the comments being made let's go ahead and address it too.

I suppose we could start by asking if you understand at all the point that Singer was trying to make?

Let's just assume that "what I observe" is an accurate assessment of the answer to that question, and address this part:

"Singer agreed that it is a case of "do you believe what the models tell you, or do you believe in your lying eyes?""

Any scientist would know that this is a false choice.  Singer has no excuse for not also knowing this, which is why he is considered to have loose professional integrity by the scientific community.

Observations and models go together.  They are interactive.  Models are designed to try to describe our observations so that we can try to predict future observations.

Furthermore, Singer mischaracterizes the process, and he does so on purpose.  Again, one of the reasons he is not considered to be of strong professional and scientific ethics.  Modelers work together with data collectors (observers) to fine-tune the models and to inform the data collection process.

Finally, observations are variable (like the weather), whereas climate must be looked at in the long term and based on trends.  Just look at the difference in temperature between night and day, cloudy or sunny, etc.  Any observation is a snapshot, or a frame of a movie.  Modelers look at the whole movie.

Funny David.  "whereas climate must be looked at in the long term and based on trends.  Just look at the difference in temperature between night and day, cloudy or sunny, etc.  Any observation is a snapshot, or a frame of a movie." 

Singer says the same thing.  global warming does not look at the long term sufficently and the moduals do not do a good job of prediction.  There are assumptions built in that are not accurate.

Every report I've read that says the globe is warming gives a figure of 1 or 2 degrees in 100 years.   That is not a national or world crisis.

"Every report I've read that says the globe is warming gives a figure of 1 or 2 degrees in 100 years.   That is not a national or world crisis."

Oh really.  And why do you think that 1 to 2 degrees C (i.e., approx. 1.8 to 3.6 degrees F) is not important?  Remember that this is the average global temperature, and it could be much higher in some regions than others.  Which is why the average temperature isn't that meaningful a measure when it comes to local effects.

But I certainly would be interested in your qualifications to assess whether 1-2 degrees change is significant or not.

Ice cap David for one.   2 or even 5 degrees C or F makes little difference in how much ice melts when it's 40 below F.   It is still ice and it will not melt until it gets to 32 degrees F.   That is a 70 degree difference.

Ice melting will not raise the oceans either.  fill a glass with ice and water.  when the ice melts the glass does not overflow.  The ice displaces the same amount of water as when it is in liquid form.  To say the polor ice cap melting and will raise the level of the ocean is contrary to known facts.

Icecap is a blog.  And guess what, it's tied into Heartland Institute too.  Big surprise.

Too bad your figures are based on a lack of understanding of the situation.

"Ice melting will not raise the oceans either.  fill a glass with ice and water.  when the ice melts the glass does not overflow.  The ice displaces the same amount of water as when it is in liquid form.  To say the polor ice cap melting and will raise the level of the ocean is contrary to known facts."

And since you seemed to have missed my other comment, I'll just repeat it here.

George, please rethink whether you want your comment to stand as a testament to your lack of understanding.

Sigh, how about a simple example.  Let's say you have a glass of water and ice filled to the brim.  The ice melts.  Does it overflow? No.

But let's say you have a glass of water and ice filled to the brim.  Then above it you balance some ice, say, like the ice that is on top of Greenland or the Antarctic continent.  Melt the ice.  What happens?

Bingo.

So sorry, George, you are much better off just copying the blog article and not commenting.  It would save you a lot of embarrassment.

David I wish you would learn to read.  I never quoted or commented on an article fro icecap.   I said Ice Cap not icecap.

No one seems to have ever thought about the idea of....What if all carbon emissions were eliminated from the earth and it still kept getting warmer??....

First off, I'm sure there are people who have thought of it.  Secondly, it's a rhetorical question divorced from what we know of the impact of carbon emissions.  It's like asking what would the world be like if Elvis were still alive.

I disagree with your limited perception, David....

There are a lot more sources of carbon emissions besides human beings and those sources will continue to emit carbon into the atmosphere to a much greater extent, whether human beings limit theirs or not.....

And as to your "First off, I'm sure there are people who have thought of it" comment, I was referring to people on this thread, not the entire global population at large...

There are very few people on this thread, so it's pretty much irrelevant what people on this thread think about climate change.  As I've said before, science isn't debated on social networking sites like Gather, especially by people who don't have any background in science.  Science is actually debated in the peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences where informed discussions can occur.

As for your suggestion that "there are a lot more sources of carbon emissions" that is partially true.  But whereas, for example, we don't have much control over volcanic eruptions, we do have control over how much industrial carbon we spew into the environment.  And the data not only show that our contribution is very significant, but that reducing it is necessary.

"There are very few people on this thread, so it's pretty much irrelevant what people on this thread think about climate change."

Are you including yourself in that presumptuous analogy, David??

"And the data not only show that our contribution is very significant, but that reducing it is necessary."

There is some truth in that statement, so I shan't argue with it....

"Are you including yourself in that presumptuous analogy, David??"

Well, it isn't an analogy, it's a statement, or perhaps a conclusion.

But why is it presumptuous?  Can you identify anyone on this thread who has sufficient climate change expertise to dictate what the science says or does not say?  How many scientists of any kind are on this thread?

Or perhaps you can look at it from the opposite perspective.  Why do you think it would be valid for people with no scientific training to refute the consensus developed from decades of scientific research?

Why do you think it would be valid to accept the views of a free market lobbying group over all the scientific organizations on the planet with respect to climate science?

Can you explain the logic in such acceptance?

Because, in the end, Gather is ultimately not about science or earth-shaking facts or some new breakthrough revelation that will change the lives of everybody forever....

It is about people expressing opinions and simply saying what they think and commenting on how they personally see things.....

Anyone seeking or anticipating more than that is merely wasting their time on the wrong website.

This is true.  Gather is about expressing opinions.  But opinions must be based on logical interpretation of factual evidence to have any validity.

Furthermore to suggest that its innocuous to spout opinions based on nothing more than blather is naive.  Gather, blogs, and other sites ultimately are a means of communication with the outside world.  Opinions offered here reflect opinions in the real world, and they influence opinions in the real world.  And when those opinions are based on inaccurate information they can be dangerous, either by stimulating action (e.g. racial attacks) or paralyzing action (i.e., blocking legislation).

That is why the letter discussed in this article was sent to bloggers and not to scientific journals.  Because it would not withstand the scrutiny of informed scientists, but it clearly is able to convince folks like Col. George and others that they have the facts when they actually have just the ideologically spun obfuscation of the anti-regulation people.  They know that quantity (number of false web sites and blogger pages) is often seen as some indicator of quality (actual supportable fact).  It is not.  They play the game and they use ideologue bloggers and Gather posters as their uninformed shills.

Finally, to write off personal integrity and intellectual honesty just because it's "only Gather" is rather sad.  We should all strive for honesty in all aspects of our life.  Integrity doesn't stop a the Gather door.

"Finally, to write off personal integrity and intellectual honesty just because it's "only Gather" is rather sad. We should all strive for honesty in all aspects of our life. Integrity doesn't stop a the Gather door."

We must be talking about two different Gathers......

We make of it what we make of it.  We each must take a responsibility for what it is and is not.

The following is the full text of the actual letter sent to Congress and to denialist bloggers:

****

You have recently received an Open Letter from the Woods Hole Research Center, exhorting you to act quickly to avoid global disaster. The letter purports to be from independent scientists, but that Center is the former den of the President’s science advisor, John Holdren, and is far from independent. This is the same science advisor who has given us predictions of “almost certain” thermonuclear war or eco-catastrophe by the year 2000, and many other forecasts of doom that somehow never seem to arrive on time.

The facts are:

The sky is not falling; the Earth has been cooling for ten years, without help. The present cooling was NOT predicted by the alarmists’ computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them.

The finest meteorologists in the world cannot predict the weather two weeks in advance, let alone the climate for the rest of the century. Can Al Gore? Can John Holdren? We are flooded with claims that the evidence is clear, that the debate is closed, that we must act immediately, etc, but in fact

THERE IS NO SUCH EVIDENCE; IT DOESN’T EXIST.

The proposed legislation would cripple the US economy, putting us at a disadvantage compared to our competitors. For such drastic action, it is only prudent to demand genuine proof that it is needed, not guesswork, and not false claims about the state of the science.

DEMAND PROOF, NOT CONSENSUS

Finally, climate alarmism pays well. Many alarmists are profiting from their activism. There are billions of dollars floating around for the taking, and being taken.

Robert H. Austin
Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
American Association of Arts and Science Member National Academy of Sciences

William Happer
Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics
Princeton University
Fellow APS, AAAS
Member National Academy of Sciences

S. Fred Singer
Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus, University of Virginia
First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service
Fellow APS, AAAS, AGU

Roger W. Cohen
Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs, ExxonMobil Corporation (retired)
Fellow APS

Harold W. Lewis
Professor of Physics Emeritus
University of California at Santa Barbara
Fellow APS, AAAS; Chairman, APS Reactor Safety Study

Laurence I. Gould
Professor of Physics
University of Hartford
Chairman (2004), New England Section of APS

Richard Lindzen
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Fellow American Academy of Arts and Sciences, AGU, AAAS, and AMS
Member Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
Member National Academy of Sciences

****

Well now.  What does the letter tell us?  Actually, nothing.  But it is useful to see how the letter is constructed.

1) In the first paragraph they reveal that they are politically motivated against the Woods Hole Group because the President's Science Advisor has some past association with them.

2) In the second paragraph they make statements that are not supported and assume that they will be taken at face value (like "Elvis is alive").

3) In the third paragraph they show either that they aren't very good scientistis or that they are politically motivated obfuscators, as anyone with any science training would not conflate weather with climate.  They also play the parlor game of suggesting that Al Gore and John Holdren suddenly came up with the climate change idea, as opposed to they are reflecting the consensus reached by scientists based on thousands of peer-reviewed papers published over three decades.  Their use of this canard demonstrates a lack of professional integrity.

4) The fourth paragraph consists of a one line rant.  As I've noted above, using all capital letters suggests bumper stickers, not science.

5) The fifth paragraph reiterates their real motivation, which is not science but the Heartland Institute's anti-regulation agenda.  Given that independent analysis of the House climate change bill demonstrates that it would far from "cripple the US economy" and the fact that the Senate bill hasn't even been written yet, there is no basis for this argument other than political.  At this point it would be good to remind everyone that the possible remedies do not change the science, and the science is that there is a consensus that climate change is occurring and that anthropogenic sources of CO2 are a major driver.

6) The fifth "paragraph" returns to the all capitalized bumper sticker slogans.  But it also reveals again how this was a politically motivated letter and not one based on science.  The co-signers of the letter should understand that scientific consensus does represent the best understanding of the preponderance of the scientific evidence.  They should know that scientific consensus is not the same as the dictionary version of consensus.  But they do this because it works as a bumper sticker to distract from the political motivation of the rest of the letter.

7) Finally, the last paragraph is simply embarrassing.  To suggest that scientists have somehow interpreted thousands of studies over three decades in their favor simply to make money is both illogical and disingenuous.  Why not level the same charge at the companies who stand to continue to make billions of dollars in profits every year because they have been able to externalize many of their costs to the taxpayers?  Why not question why the handful of scientists who actively disagree with the consensus are all associated with the Heartland Institute, a non-scientific organization whose stated mission is to further free market business principles?

That's funny I never saw the Heartland institute mentioned one time in your quote yet you say they are responsable for the letter's denial of global warming.

It's bad to chaim prejudice because one of the Wood hole Group is a radical who predicted scare scenerios in the past but it is okay for you to dissrespect these scientists for their opposing view?

Those scientists who are making these predictions from decades of study and records.  Are they the same ones who predicted an ice age in the 70s?

"It's bad to chaim prejudice because one of the Wood hole Group is a radical who predicted scare scenerios in the past"

You don't actually know anything about the Woods Hole Group, do you?

"Those scientists who are making these predictions from decades of study and records.  Are they the same ones who predicted an ice age in the 70s?"

I already addressed this.  Your information is, not surprisingly, incorrect. You really have to stay away from Newsmax.

I was alive and well during the 70s David.  I remember all the retoric about the coming of a mini ice age at the time.   My information is not incorrect at all.   I don't need Newsmax to tell me a thing about that.

Hi Col.,

Hey David,

It's great to see you discussing climate again!.....Oh Boy! More fun! LOL!

Are you going to be providing any facts to counter the skeptics research? Or are you just going to continue with postulation, conjecture and your opinion?

Let's see the temperature of the planet has moderated for the past decade despite the continued rise in atmospheric C02;

The IPCC admitted the temperature moderation a few years ago but is befuddled by it.

Global warmists have claimed the missing heat has been masked, after all if the IPCC says the planet is going to warm as the C02 content in the atmosphere rises we know it's gospel and is going to happen....after all that's what faith is all about....but can't show any science that would allow such a thing to happen.

Oh but it must be in the ocean.....but NASA's thousands of deep diving robotic thermometers can't find it in the oceans.

What's a good Global Warmist supposed to do when nature won't co-operate with the damn theory?

As usual, Dan doesn't link his source. Why?

Dan: "The credibility of lack there of, of the source has nothing to do with it, it's the message you can't accept."

Dan doesn't think the credibility of sources matters.

They manipulate their conclusions Dan.

Steve just because you can't accept the truth doen't matter.  The truth is the temperture of the earth is going down again.  Has for 10 years.

That has been explained by the Warmists as a temporary thing.

They sure do George.

But when faced with reality, rather than say hey what's going on here and try to figure it out, like responsible scientists

They try to deny the reality in hopes that it will change and they can go back to their fear mongering.

"Dan doesn't think the credibility of sources matters."

Keep trying Steve. LOL!

Oh BTW George this is Steve's latest campaign against me personally.

He can't kill the message so he is trying kill the messenger.

Neither can he nor any of the other global warmists provide a reasonable answer to why the earths temperature has moderated despite the rise in atmospheric C02.

I think it funny to watch him flail about.

Wow, those graphs look familiar.  It's just like I've seen them before.

No wait, it must have been here, or here, or here.

I'll save you the time to write it:

"Are you going to be providing any facts to counter the skeptics research? Or are you just going to continue with postulation, conjecture and your opinion?" (Dan E)

and

"Let's see the temperature of the planet has moderated for the past decade despite the continued rise in atmospheric C02;" (Dan E)

Well, guess what, Dan.  Not only has it been shown that your graphs are inaccurate, it has been shown that you have no understanding of what they or any other graph means.

To which you will respond something like:

"Dismiss and demean" (Dan E)

You really have to stop relying on the Skeptics Handbook...you know that comic book written by the performance artist that you follow to a tee, and that you think somehow gives you credibility.

I especially like these recommendations from the Handbook's author:

• How to get past the pointless tit-for-tat swapping of ‘evidence’ (i.e., data don't really matter; all that matters is persistent miming of the skeptic mantra)
• Why new results have changed everything (i.e., how we can make one study refute thousands of studies just by repeating it ad nauseum)
  

"Not only has it been shown that your graphs are inaccurate,"

O.K. David....we are waiting for your proof.

"it has been shown that you have no understanding of what they or any other graph means."

Nope David, no dismiss or demean rebuttal, rather the much more effective...It doesn't matter...the skeptical scientists do understand the science and have provided the research to back them up.

No no no David,

The skeptics handbook is a wonderful publications that teaches us how to contend with global warmists like you who argue incessantly without ever supporting your arguments with facts but instead use the word consensus in support of your ideals.

It teaches us to not respond when you do utilize dismiss and demean tactics, that facts are a more effective response.

But thanks for the link, I'm sure there are some who visit this discussion who would like to read the skeptics handbook.

"I'm sure there are some who visit this discussion who would like to read the skeptics handbook."

I don't doubt it.  They seem more interested in comic books than facts.

If ones posts could be said to be experiencing a lacuna of facts it would be yours David.

That's a fact Dan as proven right here.  He picks and chooses what he wants to talk about while claiming to have read the entire article.  Singer does a good job of describing the schools of thought on climate change but David chooses to ignore that.

He should have read http://www.desmog.me but probably didn't or dismissed everything as hogwash because it didn't agree with him.

"...lacuna of facts..."

Um, Dan, you really need a new dictionary. Or perhaps to use one.

Lacuna:  "a space where something has been omitted or has come out"

You are very good at that David.

"He picks and chooses what he wants to talk about while claiming to have read the entire article."

I'm not the one that keeps getting lost in their own comments.  Maybe it's the spelling.

"He should have read http://www.desmog.me but probably didn't or dismissed everything as hogwash because it didn't agree with him."

Since you keep insisting that desmog.me is a viable source for anything, let's take a look at it.

First off, it's entire existence was designed as an act of subterfuge.  It selected a name that would be confusing to anyone trying to get to to www.desmogblog.com, which is a blog that debunks denialists.  Now why would one blog try to confuse itself with another blog?  Well, we all know why, don't we.  [It even designed it's tab icon to mimic the desmogblog icon]

Secondly, in another act of deception, it hides who is behind it.  The most it does is link to the "I love CO2" site, which also hides it's benefactors/authors.  It says it was founded by a "concerned citizen" but most likely is the work of the Idso family that is behind CO2 Science, the blog that "I love CO2" most often cites.

"Singer does a good job of describing the schools of thought on climate change but David chooses to ignore that."

Apparently you missed it.  Read the comments.

As it says there are those who believe the modulars, those who believe in observation, those who believe both and those who believe neither.

The thing about a modular is that it can be tweeked to read anything you want it to conclude.  That's the nature of them.

He does a good job of LYING about glaciers growing when they are actually retreating. Why would he LIE about such a thing?

Why would anyone still believe this LIAR?

"Um, Dan, you really need a new dictionary. Or perhaps to use one."

Why is that David? Is my example in error?

"Why is that David? Is my example in error?"

The fact that you still don't see how your "example" is "in error" speaks volumes about why so much of what you write is incoherent.

Aha ha ha ha!

Guess my example was spot on huh David!

What example was that, Dan?

LOL!

Dan, did you lose your train of thought?  Can't remember what example you think you gave?  Finally looked up lacuna?  Or did you join George in his incoherentness?

I'd rather have you show me where my example is incorrect....except that it isn't, so if you try you'll end up looking like an ass.

You honestly don't have a clue what "example" to which you are even refering, do you?  Now that is funny.

Go ahead David...Make an ass out of yourself and make my day! LOL!

How can a scientist be so juvenile?

Dan  there are a bunch of "scientists" who stand to make a lot of money if this farce goes over.   It's time to stop them.  Logic only makes them shout louder.

"Keep trying Steve. LOL!"

I always use direct quotes, Dan. It's your own words that discredit you.

Dan (in his own words):

"The credibility of lack there of, of the source has nothing to do with it, it's the message you can't accept."

"Yes Steve keep trying, please. LOL!

BTW how do those words discredit me?

"BTW how do those words discredit me?"

If you don't understand how important the credibility of sources is, Dan, then you don't. I'm not going to try and explain it to you.