" If you want to talk truths then you really should stop using terms like "global warming." "

" Robert, in all honesty, it sounds as if you're the one with the unhappy tendencies. You seem to leave no room for reasonable debate. You simply apply a few harsh labels to those with whom you disagree; and then it's either my way or the highway? Now, come on; how reasonable is that? "

" Excuse me "Dr" Weidner,

"Global Warming" is now passe.

I'm afraid the current "scientific truth" calls this "Climate Change".

Didn't you get the latest "scientific truth" talking points? "

" An excellent letter. Organized religion and right-wing dogma is dangerous because it is based on the premise that everything important is already known, and known even without effort. In fact, the opposite is true. "

" Anyone have any idea what he's talking about? "

" Mr. Weidner, global warming being caused by pollution of man is just a political issue not substantiated by facts and that is the reality. But it does make a lot of money for Al Gore. "

" I don't know about the relatively small number, there were enough of them to foist the ignorant Sarah Palin off onto McCain as his VP nominee, which was an obvious attempt to appease the radical right wingers in his party. Remember the morally challenged Sarah Palin, the one who made the rediculous claim that man and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time? She did manage to get the rednecks and ignorant types fired up at her rallies with her right wing slogans, talking points and propaganda.

Remember these are the folks from the party that defended by the tobacco companies even after it was proven that they lied before congressional hearings about their products and unscrupulous youth oriented advertising practices.

Its too bad the the Republicans didn't have the oil executives under oath when they testified before Congress. That was merely a show on their part.

Incredibly, even after getting creamed in the last elections, their symbolic leader Limbaugh and his ilk are advocating they go even more extreme by moving further to the right with their positions. Personally I hope they do, as that will no doubt hasten their demise.

Fox news and the radio nut cases just don't get it. Is it any wonder that the Republican party is in total chaos? No leadership, ideas or anything to add except their ongoing whining about Socialism.

And now they're throwing hissy fits over they fact that Obama will no doubt select a liberal or moderate for the up coming vacancy on the Supreme court, even though they managed to get several right wingers on that bench.

Yes I have to agree, the right wingers seem to be anti-science on most issues. "

" Right wingers are now back to being powerless, whining venom-spitters. It's the role that suits them best. They can scream to start more wars that they and their children refuse to fight, and rail against financial regulations that would prevent them from stealing people's life savings. They are as happy as pigs in a substance familiar and reassuring to them. "

" Jim1969 and Mr.Andres you are exactly WHO Mr. Weidner is talking about and your statements prove his point. Talk about fantasy, you can't even read what he wrote honestly and without inserting what you wish he had written! "

" As Colin Powell battles Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh for the future of the Republican party, a new CNN poll has come out that shows Powell enjoys more support from the American public than either Cheney or Limbaugh, and by wide margins. A whopping 70 percent of the public has a favorable approval rating of Powell, while Limbaugh and Cheney hover at 30 and 37 percent, respectively
Huffington post-


Oh my, move over Rush and Dickie...

All of you right wingers better get busy and get out those Sarah Palin bumper stickers. "

" "The recent spate of right-wing letters published in the JG/T-C suggests an unhappy tendency: the writers reliance on fantasy in preference to scientific truth."

Here's some SCIENTIFIC TRUTH for you Robert:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008.htm

La Nia - the likely culprit
Currently, the Pacific Ocean is in a La Nia phase. During La Nia, cold waters upwell to cool large areas of the equatorial Pacific Ocean. This has the effect of cooling the atmosphere. During the La Nia episode of 1999, global temperatures dropped around 0.5C.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/03/arctic-sea-ice-back-to-its-previous-level-bears-safe-film-at-11/

While there has been a slight reduction in sea ice, NASA indicates in a press release in October 2007 that the main component of change is wind driven flow patterns, not air temperature changes.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-missing-sunspots-is-this-the-big-chill-1674630.html

This is the quietest Sun weve seen in almost a century, says NASA solar scientist David Hathaway. But this is not just a scientific curiosity. It could affect everyone on Earth and force what for many is the unthinkable: a reappraisal of the science behind recent global warming."

How's those for TRUTHS Robert? NASA scientific truths! And please explain to me how taxing us even more is going to solve ANYTHING even if global warming were true? "

" The truth is, of course, that many American Christian fanatics do not believe out of philosophical conviction, but out of blind tribal allegiance. They are determined to believe what they think Grandma believed, and Grandma didn't know anything more than they do. They are Christians for the same reason and with virtually the same fervor that they are fans of a particular baseball team.
The truth doesn't particularly interest them, and often frightens them, because it may well contradict the comforting myths of their huddled tribe.
Their beliefs are a matter of a psychological need for conformity, and have nothing to do with the search for truth, except to the extent that they are opposed to it. Had they been born in the Middle East, they would have been equally fanatic Muslims. "

" Becky

The Sun has absolutely NO effect on global warming or climate change, unless of course it moves closer to us. "

" First it was "Global Warming" but alas the globe refused to cooperate.

Now the term is "Climate Change", but of course the global climate has always changed.

If at first you don't succeed- lie lie again. "

" Let us focus on something relevant, and local. Let us try to explain how it is that our real estate taxes are increasing (allowing increases in pay for public servants) at a time the taxpayer is experiencing an ever-increasing inability to pay? Have you taken a serious look at your tax bill yet?

Unbelievable! Car companies going bankrupt, banks and insurance companies failing, 620,000 jobless in Illinois alone, the housing market crumbling; and Coles Count Real Estate Taxes actually go up? What? Talk about "reality and logic"!

Oh, that's right. I forgot, it's patriotic to pay more taxes. "

" "The truth doesn't particularly interest them, and often frightens them, because it may well contradict the comforting myths of their huddled tribe."
----------

The Liberal Belief System unintentionally explained by the "Id". "

" " dangerous because it is based on the premise that everything important is already known, and known even without effort. In fact, the opposite is true."
-------

So we agree- you cannot possibly "know" that God does not exist.

Glad to hear you admit it. "

" The idea that the world's climate is being changed by human activities is supported by studies accepted by the vast majority of scientists with expertise in the field, is it not? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science are among groups that have issued reports backing that view.
Or should we just rely on the ginned-up opinions of some right wing know-nothings instead? "

" Becky, sorry to inform you of this, but if you're trying to convince these lefties on here of anything, you're wasting your time. They think they have it all figured out. "

" medic57 wrote on May 26, 2009 10:32 AM:

" Becky

The Sun has absolutely NO effect on global warming or climate change, unless of course it moves closer to us.

Medic, this statement makes absolutely NO SENSE AT ALL!!! Are you kidding us? If you're not, the Sun is that big burning ball of gas that the Earth rotates around year after year. It's radiation heats our atmosphere. It's warmer in summer because we are directly in the Sun's light rays and colder in the winter because we are tilted away from the Sun causing 100 degree differenced in the matter of 6 months. How can you possibly say that the Sun has no effect on our climate? When the Sun is very active with flares and sun spots, it sends more heat and radiation towards Earth warming it's atmosphere. Now the flares and sun spots are gone and the Earth is cooling. "

" "The idea that the world's climate is being changed by human activities is supported by studies accepted by the vast majority of scientists with expertise in the field, is it not?"
---------

And the very reputable scientists who site evidence to the contrary?

Or do you prefer to verify "scientific fact" by a consensus? "

" Becky, Medic doesn't think he just spouts opinions without anything to back them up. Of course the Sun affects our climate. There is one problem the nay sayers about global warming haven't addressed and that is the unfortunate reality of retreating glaciers and melting arctic and anarctice ice sheets. In a cooling world that wouldn't be happening. Our climate is changing, warming in places, cooling in others, weather patterns are shifting (you can see it right here in ILL IF you pay attention to the weather). Some of this change may be and probably is part of a natural cycle BUT evidence is overwhelming that it has been speeded up and exacerbated by man caused actions. There is still debate as to whether we have crossed the tipping point or aren't quite there yet and may and I emphasise MAY still have time to slow or reverse the man caused problems so that nature can regulate her self once again. "

" It's obvious 7X6Z9 YOUR scientists aren't as reputable as OUR scientists. "

" And the very reputable scientists who site evidence to the contrary?
---
Hmm. Now which side do you think is more likely to be correct -- the side that knows enough to cite scientific evidence or the side that is ignorant enough to "site" it? "

" "It's obvious 7X6Z9 YOUR scientists aren't as reputable as OUR scientists."
----------

That will be news to NASA, MIT, USC, Colorado State Univ, Columbia Univ, and Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, just to name a few.

Obviously your "beliefs" in a consensus will not allow you to listen to these modern day Galileos. "

" Hmm. Now which side do you think is more likely to be correct -- the side that knows enough to cite scientific evidence or the side that is ignorant enough to "site" it?
--------

The side that "cites" it. "

" On the issue of global climate change, one side is open to the evidence. The other side is ideologically married to the notion that global climate change does not occur, and that side is therefore NOT open to the evidence.
Why this should be so isn't quite clear. I suppose some of the right wingers are dedicated to permanent environmental rape as a necessary feature of what they regard as capitalism. And many of them are just God nuts who take offense at any interruption in what they regard as the "divine plan."
But whatever the reason, they're always weighing the issue with their thumb on the scale. And that's not science. It's intellectually dishonest dogma. "

" "On the issue of global climate change, one side is open to the evidence."
---------

Would that be the side that stopped referring to it as "Global Warming" for some inexplicable reason?

The "evidence" must have changed. "

" The Question wrote on May 26, 2009 9:50 AM:

" The truth is, of course, that many American Christian fanatics do not believe out of philosophical conviction, but out of blind tribal allegiance. They are determined to believe what they think Grandma believed, and Grandma didn't know anything more than they do. They are Christians for the same reason and with virtually the same fervor that they are fans of a particular baseball team.
The truth doesn't particularly interest them, and often frightens them, because it may well contradict the comforting myths of their huddled tribe.
Their beliefs are a matter of a psychological need for conformity, and have nothing to do with the search for truth, except to the extent that they are opposed to it. Had they been born in the Middle East, they would have been equally fanatic Muslims. "

Really?? I am both a scientist and a Christian...and I never knew my Grandmothers. In fact, during my tenure as a student as I curiously investigated the world's different religions, it was the scientist in me that brought me back to Christianity. "

" My prayer (yes I said prayer) for Question, HPotter and shumphries is that you will be given a road to Damascus expierience. Then you will be softer, kinder people and the know-it-all vitrol filled minds and mouths will be at peace. It is written---THEN you shall know the Truth and the Truth will set you free. "

" My prayer (yes I said prayer) for Question, HPotter and shumphries is that you will be given a road to Damascus expierience. Then you will be softer, kinder people and the know-it-all vitrol filled minds and mouths will be at peace. It is written---THEN you shall know the Truth and the Truth will set you free. "
---
Stop spouting your vapid gibberish and grow up. "

" Jayce we have been set FREE by the TRUTH you seem to still be hiding from it. I don't know what Questions, or Mr. Potters experiences are but I suspect that they have had their mind opening and enlightening experiences, just as I have, where they started to see the world differently, with their own eyes and to THINK with their own heads, and NOT to be cowed or frightened by hate and fear mongers. "

" Mr. 7X if it is news to them perhaps they should watch the news and not be surprised by what is happening in the world. "

" "Stop spouting your vapid gibberish and grow up."
----------

"You have made us for yourself, oh God, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you."

- St. Augustine "

" "Mr. 7X if it is news to them perhaps they should watch the news and not be surprised by what is happening in the world."
---------

So reputable scientists at well respected institutions should look to- the media? - for their research and analysis?

Are you serious Madame? "

" You have made us for yourself, oh God, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you."
- St. Augustine
----
Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion -- several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven.
-- Mark Twain "

" Mr. Twain never lived to see the unprecedented horrors of the 20th Century wars, most of which had nothing to do with "religion". Humanity's capacity to wage cruelty can be done in the name of many things including religion, or worse, in the name of "the state".

Those who try to explain religion only try to explain it away. They try to use our longing for God as evidence that there is no God. As if hunger were evidence that there is no such thing as food. "

" " My prayer (yes I said prayer) for Question, HPotter and shumphries is that you will be given a road to Damascus expierience.


Please cite anything I have ever said that leads you to the conclusion that I am not a Christian. I have no problem with true Christians, I only object when I read ignorant comments things like the earth is only 6000 years old and all the other hateful blather put out on here by the so called "Christians" that post on here regularly. I don't think I would be very comfortable sitting in Church next to someone like a Jon Vanatta or 7X, especially if their congregation is lead by someone of similar ideas. "

" "I don't think I would be very comfortable sitting in Church next to someone like a Jon Vanatta or 7X, especially if their congregation is lead by someone of similar ideas."
---------

Show me the evidence of my hatred and I'll gladly point out the massive beam of rage in your own Christian eye. "

" medic57 " Anyone have any idea what he's talking about? "

YES.
Sorry you don't seem to. "

" Medic 57:The Sun has absolutely NO effect on global warming or climate change, unless of course it moves closer to us. "

Typical Right Wing Physics:
Medic has obviously never heard of the Maunder Minimum.
Further he seems happily unaware that the earth's elliptical orbit does change our distance from the sun from day to day, and that the eccentricity of the orbit varies with a period of about 40,000 years as I recall. "

" 7X6Z9:
"And the very reputable scientists who site evidence to the contrary?"

And experts like 7X6Z9 who can't even
spell "cite". Since he's looking at SITES no wonder he's on the wrong track. "

" 7X6Z9:
" 'It's obvious 7X6Z9 YOUR scientists aren't as reputable as OUR scientists.'
----------

That will be news to NASA, MIT, USC, Colorado State Univ, Columbia Univ, and Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, just to name a few."
=====================================
I can't believe it: Despite TQuestion's correction, 7Z6Z9 STILL
doesn't get it. HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! "

" A society that hides from its existential fears through stubborn adherence to fairy tales will also be one that is ripe for other such nonsense stories in the political sphere, and one that lacks the mental infrastructure, developed and sustained by habitual use, for rational decision-making. "

" The person who is asserting the existence of the invisible "all-powerful, all-knowing" entity that never appears, speaks or takes any action in public has the burden of proving its existence. And I'm afraid his "longing" for such a fantasy says something about his psychological state, but nothing about metaphysical reality. "

" Show me the evidence of my hatred and I'll gladly point out the massive beam of rage in your own Christian eye. "


As far as you're concerned, I think this is one of those forest for the trees situations, 7X. And I would note that I'm not the only one on here that has pointed out your small mindedness and hatred toward others. I would also note that it's a common practice of bigots to be in denial over their ideas. I do enjoy watching your making a fool out of yourself with your nonsense, though. You're a classic example of why America has turned it's back on Conservatism. About all your side has left is personal attacks and mean spirited barbs. "

" I am just as serious/sensible as you are with this diatribe 7X, whos scientists are more reputable than whose? Such nonsense. It is a typical argument of (some) men "mine is bigger than yours". If you want to discredit the concept of global warming/climate change than attack the points head on. As I mentioned to Becky the naysayers have no explanation for the reality that glaciers are receeding faster than ever and the polar ice caps are melting faster than ever. "

" Oh and for whoever it was that wondered why the name change from global warming to climate change. The name was changed because of the morons in this world who refuse to learn enough about a topic to understand it's basic concepts. Global warming never meant that ALL areas of the country would get noticeably warmer. It refers to a "global" rise in temperature by a very few degrees which isn't noticeable to the human on the ground. WHAT is noticeable is what this global rise in temperature does to local climates--some areas get noticeably warmer, some colder, and some areas like here in central Illinois will see wilder swings in our weather patterns, more severe storms for instance. Thus the use of the term climate change to make the concepts easier for simple folks to grasp. "

" "And I would note that I'm not the only one on here that has pointed out your small mindedness and hatred toward others."
---------

Anything I have done in a day, you have also done in spades, Mr Potter.

Just because you're one hypocrite out of many doesn't make you any less of a hypocrite on your own. And a "Christian" hypocrite at that. "

" "Such nonsense. It is a typical argument of (some) men "mine is bigger than yours".
---------

But Madame, you are the one who used that argument- not me. I refer you to your 3:34pm post from yesterday.


"The name was changed because of the morons in this world"

"to make the concepts easier for simple folks to grasp."
--------

Now who's the name-calling bully, Ms Humphreys? I thought your brand of spirituality elevated you above such mean and hateful defects.

Are you taking note Mr Potter? Alas, we are all sinners, are we not? "

" Robert, here are a few facts for you.

The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says that for a doubling of CO2 the earth will warm 1.2 deg C. In order to get a "runaway greenhouse effect", the IPCC relies on non-peer reviewed computer models to make their predictions. These computer models are dominated by so-called "positive feedbacks" which lead to the runaway effect. A simple examination of our earth's history shows that the climate system is in fact not dominated by these feedbacks. In the past, CO2 levels have been at least 30 times higher than present levels and yet there was no runaway effect. The scientific alarmists would like us to believe that because humans are causing the present increase in CO2 concentrations, the present warming is somehow different from the past and that the earth will react differently. After all, this is what the computer models say so it must be correct. This is not science, it's fraud of the highest order. "

" It seems that Mr. Weidner has been drinking the leftist koolaide. Anthropogenic global warming is a ridiculous idea in the first place when one considers that when Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the 1980's, it released more CO2 into the atmosphere than man has since he's harnessed fire. "Global warming" is nothing more than a fear mongering scam to scare people into going along with carbon trading schemes that will gut the economy and enrich those who are most vocal about promoting this hoax. Carbon credits? Give me a break! These "chicken littles" were probably the same idiots warning of the coming ice ice a mere thirty years ago, which, incidentally, is a more likely scenario than run-away temperatures. Astrophysicists have for years been pointing out the bad science behind "global warming" (and have been ignored by the mainstream media) and rightly point to the most obvious and powerful driver of climate change: the sun. Mr. Weidner should read more on the topic before spreading such ignorant misinformation. "

" 7X6Z9 wrote on May 27, 2009 8:46 AM:
" "Such nonsense. It is a typical argument of (some) men "mine is bigger than yours".
---------

But Madame, you are the one who used that argument- not me. I refer you to your 3:34pm post from yesterday.

"The name was changed because of the morons in this world"

"to make the concepts easier for simple folks to grasp."
--------

Now who's the name-calling bully, Ms Humphreys? I thought your brand of spirituality elevated you above such mean and hateful defects.

Are you taking note Mr Potter? Alas, we are all sinners, are we not? "


..........Thank you 7X!
Yes, we are all sinners. Unfortunately, some who are not Christian have tolerance and acceptance for only themselves, claim to speak up for the weak and silent, and expect those whom are Christian to be perfect.

Please be patient, God is not finished with me yet!

I will be patient with you shumphreys, since you haven't met Him yet. :-) "

" Sorry 7X I just carried through to its logical conclusion what others started. And it is a tactic that accomplishes nothing. "

" If the shoe fits 7X, I didn't call any specific person a name like the rest of you so often do, my use of the words was generic, applicable to whomever it fit. "

" I'm sure it will come as a great relief to the starving polar bears to learn that global warming or climate change (however you may term it) is just a trumped up myth used to make money for Al Gore. What a relief! All those polar ice shelves melting is just a figment of left wingers' imaginations! Yet, when you believe that the world is only 4 - 6,000 years old, I guess it isn't all that hard to deny reality. "

" Confusous, what exactly do all of your experts mean by "climate change"? Is it global warming or global cooling? 5 years ago we were going to boil ourselves to death and now we are going to freeze to death. So which is it? Also, the ipcc gets paid, extravegantly I may add, to keep us "worried" about global climate crisises. If they ever said that humans really don't have much influence on it and that we really cannot control climate changes that occur naturally, then they'd be out of a job tomorrow. Would you cut your own throat? I'll bet they never would. "

" shumphreys, you had better recheck your facts.

The data shows that glaciers in Alaska and Greenland are growing, not receding. Also, Antarctic sea ice extent is at all time highs and continuing to grow. The Daily Arctic Sea Ice Extent charts also show ice extent well above the lows of 2007. This is in spite of the scientific doomsayers predictions that the Arctic would be ice free by now. It's sad to see so many doom & gloomers swallowing the warmists propaganda hook, line, and sinker. "

" Confucius I think you should cite your sources. Anyone can google "Polar ice Caps" and find a wealth of information from a great variety of sources as well as satellite photos from www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard OR Natural Resources Defense Council or www.thewildclassroom.com/biomes or even the UIUC cryosphers site. BUT the question becomes who are we to believe? Whose "scientist" is reputable and whose "scientist" has the greatest to loose (funding from oil and gas companies for example). I also like to watch NOVA on PBS. Satellite images don't lie, or do you think they have ALL been doctored? "

" Now someone else mentioned CO2 concentrations. Again google " Carbondioxide Ice Concentrations" and see what you get. Very interesting. Are all of these samples lies? The data is there for you to look at, the graphs, discussion of measuring techniques, etc. AND there are a great number of different sites.CO2 levels have risen ("Notice that present carbon dioxide concentrations far exceed all values for the past 400,000 years, and that the concentration is high when temperature is high.") from oceanworld.tamu.edu So who are you going to believe, the data (the ice cores) or something else? Then also ask yourself IF this data is telling us the truth what does it mean for me? Is it better to err on the side of caution or what happens if we ignore these findings and do nothing? What if the findings are wrong and we still try to slow down greenhouse gases, try to curb man's consumption of fossil fuels, what happens then? Will we be better off with a healthier planet or worse off? Difficult questions. "

" Cut the BS HisChild, I support the rights of ALL people and you don't. So who is it that has "tolerance and acceptance only for themselves"? It sounds like you are talking about yourself. "

" Careful, shumphreys, you're scrambling now and it doesn't become you. Some day you'll have to admit that you're not an expert on everything. You probably won't but it's true. Get over yourself. "

" Becky and Susan

For people who prefer science over religion you sure don't know much about either.


The correlation between solar activity and temperature.

The most commonly cited study by skeptics is a study by scientists from Finland and Germany that finds the sun has been more active in the last 60 years than anytime in the past 1150 years (Usoskin 2005). They also found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity.

However, a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level. This led them to conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

In other words, the study most quoted by skeptics actually concluded the sun can't be causing global warming. Ironically, the evidence that establishes the sun's close correlation with the Earth's temperature in the past also establishes it's blamelessness for global warming today.

The Suns distance from here to there is about 93 million miles, if the sun died, we wouldn't know it for over 8 minutes. If the Suns distance changed over 5%, we wouldn't be alive.

North Atlantic Drift, warm ocean current in the northern part of the Atlantic Ocean. It is a continuation of the Gulf Stream, the merging point being at lat. 40N and long. 60W. Off the British Isles it splits into two branches, one going south (the Canary Current) and the other going north along the coast of W and N Europe, where it exerts considerable influence upon the climate as far as northwestern Europe. This current is affected by melting polar ice and antartic shelf breaking off. These 2 things happen because of increased carbon dioxide and other gasses in the atmosphere and the amount of fresh water being dumped into the ocean (salt water) causing de-salinization. If enough happens, the North Atlantic Current could de-stabilize causing all kinds of headaches. "

" I wonder what "scientific truths" and "reality and logic" Dr. Weidner is writing about?

Could you be writing about the volumous, seemly "incontrovertible" evidence the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and "all about the profit" Al Gore has produced saying that global warming is a fact?

...some "scientific truth" ...

The "funny" thing about all the research the IPCC and Al Gore has published, most of it has P-statistics of <90% confidence, let alone the weak R-values(correlations)they cite.

With what they've published as fact, any good statistician would immediately question the significance of their research.

At the very least they'd ask for the significance of the contrary evidence. Ya know, that ol' type II beta stuff, right Dr. W.? You know about that stuff, right?

So it would be my sincerest hope that Dr. Weidner, also known as Cogni..., might just stick to discussions involving music rather than delving into "donnish" discussions concerning "scientific truths" and "reality and logic".

I'd hate to think that "academics", of various capacities, won't consider alternative arguments anymore from the "less erudite" ...resorting to attacking the "less erudite" through their small town newspapers... "

" Wow shumphreys "Satellite images don't lie, or do you think they have ALL been doctored? "

Wouldn't it be nice to see satellite images from different periods throughout the earth's 4.5 BILLION year history relative to the gas levels at the time?

Maybe then those current satellite images might be of some value... "

" shumphreys telling HisChild to cut the BS? Now THAT IS funny, LOL! "

" Thank you Robert for the letter!
shumphreys is the perfect example of life on the fantasy lane. "

" Wouldn't it be nice to see satellite images from different periods throughout the earth's 4.5 BILLION year history relative to the gas levels at the time?

4.5 BILLION year old history?

Uh...I thought the earth was only 6000 years old at the most. That's what's being "preached" on here by your science hating friend, Vanatta. What's the deal, Neo?

Jon, you better get on the ball and straighten Neo out on this issue. "

" Harry Potter

I agree with you on this one, kind of (gasp) I am a christian and believe the bible entirely. I have a friend who believes the entire universe is only 10000 years old, she believes God is decieving us as to it's age. Nope, sorry, I don't believe this, science has proved that when you look at a star (any star) at night it took that star's light several million years to get to your eyes. Simple mathematics, if a star is so many miles away then it takes that stara light so long to get here. So, when you divide 1 light year (5,878,630,000,000 miles) by the speed at which light travels in a vacuum in 1 year, you get the distance between here and there. Simple division. Right? Nope, sorry, God does not decieve us, I believe what Genesis says in the Bible when it says God created the heavens and the Earth in 7 days, however, it says, in the beginning, it does not say when the beggining was. "

" Medic you said "the sun has absolutely no effect on global warming or climate change". We just pointed out that it does and then you even said that if the sun goes out we wouldn't notice for 8 minutes--then what--I think we would see a major climate change and an effect on global warming (there wouldn't be any warming, it would start to get quite cold in fact). You need to learn to be a bit more precise with your sweeping statements. "

" shumphreys, in only one of the websites you offered for reference can a person find unbiased information. The UIUC's Cryosphere Today site is an excellent source of sea ice information and if you would have read the site, you would have known that your statement saying "the polar ice caps are melting faster than ever" is just plain wrong. Cryosphere's charts clearly show that Northern and Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent has been expanding. In fact, Southern Hemisphere sea ice has been expanding since the 80's and the Northern Hemisphere sea ice is well off it's lows of 2007. You should get your facts straight before posting. "

" It sure would be fun to see satellite images from the beginning and to have them to compare to images from our time. BUT the fact is that the images are showing the glaciers and icecaps are receeding not advancing as Confucius claimed. The fact is that ice core samples have shown a rise in CO2 concentrations (highest to date). So something is happening. Now there does still appear to be room for debate about what is causing these changes, how much is man caused and how much is natural. Personally I think we are going into a natural warming trend that has been speeded up and exacerbated (made worse) by man. AND I think there is also room for debate as to whether we have reached the tipping point or whether we can slow things down so that mother nature can regulate herself once again. AND people should THINK about the issues: if we do nothing, what happens? and if we do try to control our green house gas emissions what happens? It seems that people prefer to ignore unpleasant realities until it is too late. From what I have been hearing there were warnings of the collapse of the American automobile manufacturers as far back as 1982, a time when changes could have been made that may have prevented this current mess. So if we ignore the warning signs of global warming and climate change, either pretending nothing is happening, or arguing over who is or isn't too blame what happens? "

" Susan, you need to REREAD (ever heard that one before) my statement, the Suns effect on Earth is a constant, it doesent change whereas conditions on Earth do change. If, the conditions on Earth do change and the condition of the Sun does not change, then it stands to reason (again, above your head) that the Sun is not effecting changing conditions on the Earth. "

" So if we ignore the warning signs of global warming and climate change, either pretending nothing is happening, or arguing over who is or isn't too blame what happens? "


That statement alone disproves your own hypothosys that the Sun affects Global warming. Arguing over WHHO is to blame? Since we can assume that The Sun is not a persons or persons we can also assume that The Sun cannot be blamed.

Global Warming is caused by Greenhouse Gasses in the atmosphere getting trapped in Artic and Antartic Ice thereby wayming the ice.
Now, what causes all of these gasses is the big question. If, they are natural, there is absolutely nothing we can do about it, but not all are natural, we know this to be scientific fact, cars, factories and burning all give off extra carbon dioxide, however, the Mt. Pinatubo explosion put more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than man ever has.
Some think that global warming will cause the Earths temperature to rise, this is no the case, what severe global warming would cause is an Ice Age because it would disrupt the North Atlantic Current.
Do we pollute the Earth and add to Global Warming, absolutely, do we do it enough to really make a difference, nobody knows, yet. "

" Many of you need to get current on your data about the polar ice caps. They are not disappearing. The closest term at the moment would be they are shifting. While portions of the ice shelf are breaking off other areas are expanding.

Many people want to say their theory about what is happening to the planet's climate and why it is happening as the truth, the real truth, IMHO is that we really do not know enough yet to determine what really is going on and more importantly what should be done about it. At this point any "cure" may be more dangerous than the disease. "

" Seriously Late Bird, do you ever have anything other that your ongoing attacks on Susan to add to the discussion? Those comments seem to make you look like a rather small person. "

" medic57, you said "the Suns effect on Earth is a constant, it doesn't change". This is a patently false statement. You might want to study up on the Maunder Minimum and Solar Cycles before making statements that are untrue. "

" Ah Medic "Global Warming is not caused by greenhouse gases getting trapped in polar ice." your statement. You really don't have a grasp of the topic. You need to go back to square one, do your research and try again. "

" Jim1969 I will agree with you in the sense that at this point our scientists don't fully understand ALL there is to know about the complexities, of our climate. BUT I think you need to elaborate on your statement that "the cure can be more dangerous than the disease". How can limiting carbon emissions be dangerous to anything? How can creating "green" jobs be dangerous to anthing? How can limiting our dependance on foreign oil be dangerous to anyone other than the foreign oil supplier and those in our country that make fortunes in supplying us with foreign oil? "

" Sorry Medic as Becky pointed out the suns effect does change with our seasons, with solar flare activity. Try again. "

" Jim1969 I have searched the web (as best I can) and can find no reference to support your statement that the ice caps are expanding. If there is such a reference please cite it. Everything I have found, and I do mean everything agrees that they are shrinking. Now it is true that they are constantly adding more snow, that is what polar regions do, but the melting is faster than what is being added and the net effect is a loss of mass. "

" I can understand you confusion Confucius, it isn't easy following all the data and websites. I'll try to make it simple for you. Polar ice caprs can be divided into two groups those that cover the land mass and that which covers the sea. Globally most land based ice is shrinking, and some at faster rates than others. Sea Ice in the north is declining at a fairly rapid rate. In the south the ice is increasing but not fast enough to compensate for what is being lost in the north for an overall loss in sea ice. Let's do be clear on the difference between the land mass ice, the polar cap, and the sea ice. Overall net loss, not net gain. Oh and my source I emailed the UIUC website and got a very quick response from a very nice gent. "

" Sorry Medic as Becky pointed out the suns effect does change with our seasons.

And those are all constants. "

" No Medic there is nothing "constant" about our weather. Was last winter the same as the one before? What about this spring, cooler than the year before. And the rain, last year we had a 500 year flood. This year just lots of rain, but spread out so no major flood (so far). Since our weather isn't constant the logical conclusion would be that those forces that affect our weather must also NOT be constant. "

" Tom Andres wrote on May 26, 2009 12:01 PM:
" Becky, sorry to inform you of this, but if you're trying to convince these lefties on here of anything, you're wasting your time. They think they have it all figured out. "

---------------------
+100 Tom

It seems like what ever the topic is here, a hand full of posters turn it back to Bush, the Republicans, Limbaugh, Fox News or some other talking point from the past that usually has nothing to do with the real topic people are trying to discuss.

Hum???

The Top Seven Techniques Liberals Use to Lie about Conservatives
by John Hawkins


1. Question The Motivations: Shift the discussion not to the facts at hand, but to the motivation of the person on the other side.

2. The Anonymous Smear: Take a vicious critic or an unreliable source and make them "anonymous."

3. The Teary Eyed Spokesman: Pick pathetic figures we're supposed to feel sorry for as spokesmen.

4. Rewrite history: The American public has a short memory and liberals count on that to get away with many of their most egregious lies.

5. Everybody Knows: Refuse to have the argument at all and assure everyone that the matter has already been decided.

6. The Ransom Note: Take something a conservative says completely out-of-context and attack that comment.

7. The Straw Man: If you can't find a sin conservatives have committed to attack, then invent one.

I would add in two more from Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals:

8. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon (use the personal destruction of your opponent when all else fails)

9. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Although I know the slams are a-coming, I say again I am a conservative and a staunch Constitutionalist NOT a party loyalist. "

" Jim 1969 has the most correct evidence: the polar caps have experienced a shift.

As of now, there are many within the scientific community that are of a skeptical nature towards man-made climate change (it hasn't been called global warming for a while now -- because the evidence at the moment suggests that the planet isn't warming, it's cooling, which gives some good reason to be skeptical of the global warming arguement in and of itself). I believe that global climate change may have a multitude of sources -- solar flares, pole shift, ocean current change, and yes, perhaps human pollution -- but I don't think there is enough data to truly say for sure, and yes, a "cure" right now might turn out to be a "poison".

Al Gore is making a ton of cash off of this though, and I've got less of the green stuff in part due to global warming politics. So that raises the skepticism as well.

Oh, and not all polar bears are starving -- some populations are not doing well, but others are fine.

If I have to come back with cited statistics, I will. "

" The Question wrote on May 26, 2009 11:49 AM:
" The idea that the world's climate is being changed by human activities is supported by studies accepted by the vast majority of scientists with expertise in the field, is it not? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science are among groups that have issued reports backing that view.
Or should we just rely on the ginned-up opinions of some right wing know-nothings instead? "
----------------

Funny thing about science, todays for-sure, end-all, got-to-be theory somehow often ends up being nothing more than a small clue to the big puzzle as we get just a little bit smarter over time.

Climate change- boy, that ones been around the block a bunch of times:

Following teaser plagiarized from the following link:

http://tinyurl.com/pwju4

Five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of geologists.

The president at the time wasnt Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland.

And the Times wasnt warning about global warming it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age.

The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis. Each prediction carried its own elements of doom (continued. "

" Bps how many years ago was that? Science keeps advancing. It is hard to keep us with it but do give it a try. No one has addressed the question I asked on one of these threads so I will ask again. If global warming is true and we do nothing what happens? If global warming is a false alarm and we do somethings to eliminate greenhouse gases, to lower our dependance on foreign oil, to develop alternative and renewable energy resources, to decrease our per capita energy consumption what happens? Some of you have declared the cure could be worse than the disease. And I also asked what is wrong with eliminating greenhouse gases, lower our use of foreign oil (other than a loss of revenue for foreign countries and American oil barons), etc. how are any of these in anyway harmful? "

" shumphreys wrote on May 29, 2009 8:31 PM:
" Bps how many years ago was that? Science keeps advancing. It is hard to keep us with it but do give it a try. No one has addressed the question I asked on one of these threads so I will ask again. If global warming is true and we do nothing what happens? If global warming is a false alarm and we do somethings to eliminate greenhouse gases, to lower our dependance on foreign oil, to develop alternative and renewable energy resources, to decrease our per capita energy consumption what happens? Some of you have declared the cure could be worse than the disease. And I also asked what is wrong with eliminating greenhouse gases, lower our use of foreign oil (other than a loss of revenue for foreign countries and American oil barons), etc. how are any of these in anyway harmful? "
---------------
Shumphreys

You totally missed the point I was trying to make.

MY POINT WAS:

Climate changes constantly, it always has and it always will. The media and Scientist have been consistently wrong for at least 100 years on this subject.

The link I gave is an illustration of the point that this subject is much larger and more complex than the scientist can truly understand and their views change.

Each, second, minute, hour, day, year, decade, century.. the systems have interacted, changed and will continue to change- regardless of what mankind does.

Most of the current hysteria about climate changes is driven by the massive amounts of moneys to be made by the prime proponents (Al Gore included) just as they have been for the last 100 years.

Sorry, but just because Al Gore says its settled science- don't make it so.

There are honest and good scientist on both sides of the discussions that should be heard, yet one side is ridiculed and stifled, wonder why?

I do want to answer your question though-

If global warming is true and we do nothing what happens?

Since it is caused by all those things we do not have the ability to control or change (Solar Output, volcanoes, termites, etc.), we would have to adapt to the changes or die.

Just as every other living thing has had to do on this planet throughout history.

As far as the rest of your points, my posts tend to be way to long anyway and the laundry list is to long for me to address. "

" Susan, it isn't a matter of encouraging more environmentally friendly practices (a good thing imho), rather it is the accceptance of what may be a flawed theory as the gospel truth and enacting policies/practices that 1)lower the standard of living for people (a lower standard of living for some may not seem like much, but consider the consequences of a lower standard of living on people who already live a pretty hard scrabble life -- what causes a lower standard of living here may push others in different parts of the planet into starvation); 2)put into policy practices which actually might harm the planet more (solar power as it is right now is heavily pollutant in its manufacture; there are others even more disasterous and hair brained).

If it was merely a matter of being thrifty and more ecologically responsible in a reasonable and moderate fashion, then I wouldn't take issue with it. However, the global warming crusade has inspired some very crazy ideas of a potentially harmful sort...and then there's the issue with certain people shamelessly promoting it (with no regard to scientific objectivity, nor ethical thought for the consequences, nor academic integrity) merely to line their own pockets -- when has a situation like that every been for the "good" of anyone or anything other than the pocket liner, and shouldn't the rest of us therefore approach such a theory with cynical skepticism for our own good. A snake oil sales pitch should make one question the theory, because the motives aren't exactly pure. "

" Unknown Joe how are environmentally responsible policies going to lower the standard of living for Americans? For other countries the standard of living can't go lower for a vast majority and environmentally responsible policies create healthier living conditions (less health care costs,safer food supply, safer drinking water) and jobs. "

" Be specific UnknownJoe, making sweeping statements doesn't work in responsible debate. Name specific programs that will do more damage than good. Also I might add that spreading misinformation about global warming works both ways, only in my opinion it is worse for the naysayers because the consequences of being wrong and global warming being right and doing nothing are far more dangerous than promoting environmentally responsible practices. "

" AND Bps who is making and will be making even more massive amounts of money by continuing to spread false information/denying that global warming is an unpleasant reality? You have also missed what many of us have said and what many scientists have said, climate does change, and the change appears to haven speeded up at an alarming rate (that isn't hysteria) and that appears to be exacerbated by human actions. Now as to your other points if a scientist is stifled ask yourself why, what is the motivation, who has the most to loose, are they directing their comments at the issue or sidestepping, are they arguing about apples when the others are talking about oranges? It doesn't do any good to say that data is wrong, you need to prove that it is wrong and provide data that show otherwise, which doesn't seem to be occuring. "

" Hey Susan, Fox news says global warning or climate change is a hoax, and you know how fair and balanced they are. Jon Vanatta gets a lot of his facts "facts" from there too. lol! "

" From your response, I am not at all sure you have read my reply so I will try one last time to make my point.

AGAIN:

The climate changes constantly. It has as far as can be determined, done this forever.

Honestly and truly, I promise you very highly ranked and knowledgeable scientists are divided upon its cause.

In fact they are the few that are actually working together to determine the actual truth of the matter, which will result in the actual solution.

Again, I am not disputing nor have I disputed that the climate changes and is changing.

I am also NOT disputing that we should be good stewards of the earth (I AM ONE and have been for a very long time).

My story is (and I am sticking to it) - YOU WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH- BE OPEN TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WITH FACTS AND OPEN, HONEST DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE APPROPIATE SCIENTISTS REPRESENTING BOTH SIDES. "

" "Name specific programs that will do more damage than good."
-----------

Well Ms Humphreys, I will cite an internal memo of the EPA marked 'Attorney Client Privilege' that warned about the negative impact EPA regulation of CO2 would have on the economy.

Oh and Ms Humphreys, the EPA memo also challenged the notion that their own agency or anyone else had proven CO2 or other greenhouse gases to be harmful to humans.
---------

TheHill May 12 2009- An EPA finding last month that greenhouse gases are a danger to public health rests on dubious assumptions and could have negative economic impacts, a memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) warned.

The memo has no listed author but is marked "DeliberativeAttorney Client Privilege." A spokesman for OMB told Dow Jones Newswires that the brief is a "conglomeration of counsel we've received from various agencies" about the EPA finding, the conclusions of which would trigger regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

The author(s) of the memo suggest the EPA did not thoroughly examine the relationship between greenhouse gases and human health.

"In the absence of a strong statement of the standards being applied in this decision, there is concern that EPA is making a finding based on'harm' from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects," the memo says, adding that the "scientific data that purports to conclusively establish" that link was from outside EPA.

Additionally, the new regulations triggered by the finding would likely harm the economy, the brief warns.

"Making the decision to regulate CO2is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities," the memo reads.

Finally, in language sure to anger climate change activists, the memo questions whether climate change might bring benefits that would mitigate the costs.

"To the extent that climate change alters out environment, it will create incentives for innovation and adaption that mitigate the damages," the memo reads. "The [EPA finding] should note this possibility[.]"

The memo goes so far as to suggest that global warming might be a net positive for certain regions of the United States.

"It might be reasonable to conclude that Alaska will benefit from warmer winters for both health and economic reasons," the authors note.

At a Senate hearing today, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) grilled EPA administrator Lisa Jackson about the memo.

"This is a smoking gun," Barrasso said, accusing the EPA of making the finding for political reasons.

Jackson responded that the finding was based on science and was in no way politicized.

"That analysis had been done really before I took the oath of office," Jackson said.

She acknowledged that curbing climate change might have economic impact, and added that the costs could be minimized through the administration's favored cap-and-trade system.

"We do understand that there are costs to the economy of addressing global warming emissions, and that the best way to address them is a gradual move to a market-based program like cap-and trade," Jackson said. "

" I should have added Unknown Joe a question. What will happen to the standard of living of folks if Global Warming is right and we do nothing? If you make an argument you need to find one that isn't just as true for the other position. "

" Bps you obviously have not read what I have written so I shall be explicit. I have said repeatedly that climate changes and that it appears to be changing at a more rapid pace than normal, that saying my expert is better than your expert accomplishes nothing, (honestly and truly there are many experts, highly acclaimed scientists that don't have a complete grasp of the complexities of our climate), if you want to discuss this issue than put the information on the table where it can be honestly addressed, don't make sweeping doom and gloom statements without having something to back up your position. Does that clarify things for you? Which by the way 7X has finally put something direct on the table and a report that can be looked at and points that can be picked apart. And he is right there will be a cost to doing something just as there will be a cost if we do nothing. Now which costs will be greater, more devastating to lives (standard of living)? What will be the cost if sealevels rise inundating coastal areas and displacing millions of people around the world as well as some prime agricultural land? Pay up front, pay under the table, pay later? "

" 7X one question about this memo, "that analysis had been done really before I took the oath of office," Jackson said. We have heard before that Bush pressured departments to make their findings fit his conclusions. Is this another instance of that, it was prepared under his administration. "

" shumphreys wrote on May 31, 2009 3:14 PM:

" Bps you obviously have not read what I have written so I shall be explicit. I have said repeatedly that climate changes and that it appears to be changing at a more rapid pace than normal, that saying my expert is better than your expert accomplishes nothing, (honestly and truly there are many experts, highly acclaimed scientists that don't have a complete grasp of the complexities of our climate), if you want to discuss this issue than put the information on the table where it can be honestly addressed, don't make sweeping doom and gloom statements without having something to back up your position. Does that clarify things for you? Which by the way 7X has finally put something direct on the table and a report that can be looked at and points that can be picked apart. And he is right there will be a cost to doing something just as there will be a cost if we do nothing. Now which costs will be greater, more devastating to lives (standard of living)? What will be the cost if sealevels rise inundating coastal areas and displacing millions of people around the world as well as some prime agricultural land? Pay up front, pay under the table, pay later? "

-------------

Excuse me, but I have read what you have written. I made not a single gloom and doom statement in any of my posts. In fact I have basically asked one simple question each time.

In no way shape or form am I a qualified climatologist. Dont want to speak for you, but its probably a sure bet you arent either.

We were engaged in a simple debate on this one point- the necessity of the free exchange and interaction between scientists from both sides of the issue and the continuing attempt by the Global Warmers (sorry Changers) to stifle all debate on the subject (to call it settled science).

My statements and the supporting references have been simple because I dont wish to take up to much room in this blog nor did I wish to highjack this thread from its original intent.

So, how do you feel about the free and open discussion of the science of this by both sides or do you agree with Al Gore that it is settled Sciences?

As far as allowing the free and open discussion of the science of the topic:

Climate of Fear: Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5294

THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF MORE EXAMPLES. "

" "We have heard before that Bush pressured departments to make their findings fit his conclusions. Is this another instance of that, it was prepared under his administration."
--------

I don't follow you Ms Humphreys.

Bush supported the global warming effort. "

" Bps I wouldn't be on this site if I didn't support free and open debate. I wouldn't be challenging folks to put up (as in make specific points with sources to document their points rather than sweeping generalities and cute sound bites, they have taken off of someother site without any thought to the sense and sensibility of the statement/argument). "

" 7X Bush is not known as a great environmentalist. He did some things in the last part of his presidency that can be viewed as attempting to salvage some sort of legacy for himself. The whole point is that one should investigate further, get the "rest of the story" and not take everything they read online as the gospel TRUTH. Honestly I have started to investigate and so far have come up with nothing substantice about the memo. I went through four pages of google references and there were many, many more. They all seemed to be gleeful, repeats of the exact same statements. No reports of the context, purpose, author, full text of the memo. In this internet age, you can find great information on the internet that can inform, mislead, and confuse. The reader has to be careful and not get taken in by a hoax or by those with a specific agenda that isn't in the publics best interest. "

" "The reader has to be careful and not get taken in by a hoax or by those with a specific agenda that isn't in the publics best interest."
--------

I see Ms Humphreys. Perhaps ABC News is lacking in your investigative skills.

Then again, perhaps not:

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/EPA.pdf "

" No 7x but there wasn't anything substantive in their report. It was a repitition of the same talking points, no explanations, further revelations, or more detailed information. Even main stream newsmedia do that sometimes. "

" That ABC News link is a copy of the actual memo in question Ms Humphreys.
You can read it for yourself. And the analysis of the story was independently covered by ABC as well. The only talking points were from the Obama administration.

You simply don't like the facts of this story, Madam, so you insist that there must be more to the story lest it be a hoax. "

" No 7X I didn't see a link to the actual memo but I will look for it. "

" 7X you really shouldn't have pushed me to look at the actual memo. I found it by googling: "EPA Memo, "Deliberative-Attorney Client Privilege". I hope others will look it up and read it. It appears to me NOT to be a memo that disputes the EPA Science it is a memo that tells them they need to better make their case, better ways to present their evidence (make their arguments), so their findings WON'T appear biased or unfounded. "

" "It appears to me NOT to be a memo that disputes the EPA Science it is a memo that tells them they need to better make their case,"
---------

Sorry Ms Humphreys, the memo clearly challenged the notion that the EPA or anyone else had actually proven CO2 or other greenhouse gases to be harmful to humans:


"In the absence of a strong statement of the standards being applied in this decision, there is a concern that EPA is making a finding based on (1) "harm" from substances that have no demonstrated direct health effects, such as respiratory or toxic effects, (2) available scientific data that purports to conclusively establish the nature and extent of the adverse
public health and welfare impacts are almost exclusively from non-EPA sources, and (3) applying a dramatically expanded precautionary principle. If EPA goes forward with a
finding of endangerment for all 6 GHGs, it could be establishing a relaxed and expansive new standard for endangerment. Subsequently, EPA would be petitioned to find endangerment and regulate many other "pollutants" for the sake of the precautionary
principle (e.g., electromagnetic fields, perchlorates, endocrine disruptors, and noise)."

That is a direct quote, Madam.
You may stop spinning your talking points anytime now, Ms Humphreys. "

" What's more Ms Humphreys, the memo then suggests that if warming was indeed the result of mans activity, it may have beneficial effects rather than being a net negative:

"To the extent that climate change alters out environment, it will create incentives for innovation and adaption that mitigate the damages,"

"The [EPA finding] should note this possibility[.] .... It might be reasonable to conclude that Alaska will benefit from warmer winters for both health and economic reasons,"

I'm afraid you're going to need more talking points, Madam. "

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 1, 2009 8:01 AM:
" Bps I wouldn't be on this site if I didn't support free and open debate. I wouldn't be challenging folks to put up (as in make specific points with sources to document their points rather than sweeping generalities and cute sound bites, they have taken off of some other site without any thought to the sense and sensibility of the statement/argument). "
----------------

Since this thread is no longer listed on the main web page, I will be my long winded self and take a little more space to actually address some of your points.

Your dismissive attitude towards my short postings was unwarranted if in fact you truly agree with open and honest discussions amongst individuals as you state in your opening sentence.

I say this with no intent of meanness or to anger you. It is my interpretation of your intent.

I am glad that you did finally answer my question and that you also support open and free scientific discussions.

Your argument that you wouldnt be on this site if you didnt- assumes I have knowledge about you that I couldnt possible have. In my short time visiting the site I have encountered too many posts (from both sides of the spectrum) that are closed and locked thinkers.

As I implied in my previous post I was trying not to highjack or monopolize the thread with my usually long posts.

Therefore I stuck around the same theme with very simple postings and believe it or not tried to post some humor into the topic.

Thats is why I used the opening reference on the history of just the last 100 years to make the single point in response to TQs post, that it is really unsettled science and even with our advances in science in reality it still is.

As I attempted to say (apparently poorly), I believe the climate is changing and that it has and will continue to change until this old system finally winds down.

One only has to go to the moraines that run across Coles County, to have seen some of the bits of fossils of ice age animals that were found in the old gravel pits around Ashmore, or the warm sea fossils that come from all over this state to find proof of major climate shifts.

My major differences with you on this appear to be:

1. Its cause (man made, sun, etc.)

I am still somewhat open on this but the scientific evidence I see (tons from both sides) is counter-indicative to each other.

But, the results from the Gore camp have proven to have major flaws which indicate it probably has major errors in its underlying algorithms and assumptions.

Therefore I am still waiting for a valid and verifiable pattern to emerge but frankly I lean towards the system wide impacts far outweighing mans.

One of the biggest reasons is because there are several studies that have shown similar climate curves within the other inner planets that coincide with our current patterns amongst other areas of research.

2. What if anything can actually be done about it?

To avoid the rush to do something because dog-gonit we just have to, my approach would always be take the proper amount of time to do the right things for the right reasons.

It has been my personal experiences to have to clean up major messes because of folks being too quick to act.

Doing the wrong things for the right reasons NEVER solves the root problem(s).

3. Are the main proponents of the most popular point (Al Gore and such) trying to close down the scientific discussions?

All of my readings of speeches, articles and other materials indicate very strongly that they have been and are doing this.

It is also very clear that Mr. Gore and others heavily involved in his side of the issue, have made a considerable sum of money off of suspect ventures that directly benefit from his stances.

Additionally, his waste of resources in his personal and business life and his poor stewardship of his concerns is unconscionable and indefensible.

As a frugalist it is especially galling.

It is understandable that it appears from our interaction on the thread that we differ on these three areas because they are the exact same areas that the two scientific research camps are discussing.

Just as you seem to be, I am also an eclectic and avid reader who is curious about many, many different topics.

I very much believe in open discussions. I also learned a great many years ago that most times people who feel strongly about a subject can only change themselves (including myself by the way).

All the arguments, verbal tricks and facts in the world from someone else, does not make the difference.

The difference comes from the person themselves incorporating information from multiple sources gleaned over a period of time and then incorporating it and deciding in their own minds.

Whew- there you have my argument and yes it is reasoning only.

I didnt include all the links to all the facts, books and research papers that lead me to this position, because even though this is a rolled thread this post is still way to long.

In our few discussions here it is obvious that we are going often be on different sides of several if not most subjects.

I have no problem with disagreeing or ending a discussion with the primary parties still in opposition.

After all, that is one of our fundamental rights of free will, to decide for ourselves.

Although I think flame wars are a waste of time and space, I have been known to engage at them on my closely held core values to make a point to those reading the posts who in reality are the ones I am often really trying to reach (only after another poster starts it). One augmentative vehicle is a good as another in that case.

I will be more than happy to present all the facts, counterarguments and articulate my positions within the guidelines of this forum and within the good manners of not high jacking a live thread or boring the other participants.

All of us are entitled to fair treatment.

I didnt think that anything that I had put into my posts was offensive or mean spirited and if you felt so, none was intended. My humor might be lame at times, but again there was no disrespect intended. "

" And here's more Ms Humphreys:

The ABC News report that the memo advises the White House that any attempt to regulate output of CO2 in energy production will likely have "serious economic consequences," an admission that will boost criticism of the EPA's proposed regulation of the industry:

"Making the decision to regulate CO2 under the CAA for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities," states one comment in the memo, which were collected and officially sent by the White House's Office of Management and Budget. "Should EPA later extend this finding to stationary sources, small businesses and institutions would be subject to costly regulatory programs such as New Source Review."

Thank you for "pushing" me to post more excerpts on the memo Ms Humphreys.
More people need to be aware of the very real dangers of this pseudo-science called "global warming" now known as the grand hoax of "climate change".

Here's the address for the memo again:

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/EPA.pdf "

" INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CONTROL, the facts are all there "

" how ya been blue dog, it is lovely to see your copied news reports again lol, thank you Barbara Walters "