The problem is far greater than the Senate casting an historic vote on a global warming bill this week. Over the next 20-years the world will begin to see the growing emergence of major indicators that humankind will very likely become extinct in this very century. Panic will definitely set in. That is the consensus of the World Innovation Foundation that represents the independent voice of the world’s scientific community incorporating over 3,500 of the finest scientific, engineering and technological minds on the planet.
Governments and large global corporations just do not understand the immense ramifications for them and humankind. Indeed, they appear to think that they will be immune to the forces of nature and the sheer unparalleled devastation that is on the horizon for humankind, but where this thinking will be totally misplaced as always. You see, there will be no hiding place even if you are the richest person on earth or the largest corporate. This is the terrible truth of what is on the horizon for humankind. In this respect there is an accelerating state of building up on all fronts that will literally destroy many parts of human existence from nuclear disasters, food crop failures bringing high famine and deaths throughout the world, acute water depletion from which we depend upon for life, the financial collapse of much of the banking system and with it wealth as we know it, oil disruption brought about by a series of events from terrorism to irrational wars, a disintegration of total energy supply to the overdue pandemic that will come as night follows day. The only hope that we have at our disposal for any meaningful response to this growing and terrifying future ordeal that humankind will face is to build the immense global ORE-STEM complex with its more than 1,000 satellite research incubator centres through the world. This mechanism thought out by some of humankind’s foremost minds in the 20th century of harnessing global solutions through total human collaboration is our only answer. The problem is though that we are literally running out of time itself to implement this only solution to preserve human life on this planet, as it will take 25 years to implement. Therefore by 2032 when humankind realises this, it will be too late. Therefore the reasoning that the human experience is now predestined not to survive further than this present century. Presently what one can call the world’s most important maxim.

Dr David Hill
World Innovation Foundation
Bern, Switzerland

I personally do not believe that human beings are responsible for global warming at all. I also do not believe that we are contributing to it. However, I do believe that we should utilize our technology to reduce the creation of pollution to be good stewards of the planet. History and Science show that temperature and weather have been cyclic through out civilization. The people who insist on perpetuating this myth of man-made global warming have an agenda. Wake up people.

Human being extinct this very century? Oh boy. Lay off the hemp.

sounds like someone has been drinking too much of the Church of Global Warming's Kool Aid.

Al Gore’s Fantasy
By Joe Cascarelli, Westcliffe CO

Now that Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth has been officially embraced by Hollywood and the Nobel Prize committee, the debate on “global warming” is finally over. The only question that still remains unanswered for me is, “How did such a large portion of the American public become so gullible?” One of my theories is that Americans have become intellectually lazy. Another theory is that schools may not be spending enough time on the sciences. A passing grade in high school physics should be enough background knowledge for any thinking person to shoot dozens of holes in former VP Gore’s fantasies as presented in his “documentary.”

I wonder how Mr. Gore would explain this data. Colorado’s record high temperature was 118 F, set on July 11, 1888. Yes, that’s 1888 not 1988. I wonder how the New York Times missed that opportunity to predict the melting of polar ice caps. Maybe they planned to write that story, but the famous blizzard of ’88 earlier that year was a bigger crisis particularly in New York City where several hundred New Yorkers froze to death. Nearly three decades later on June 27, 1915, Alaska set its current record high at 100 F, recorded at the US Weather Service’s station at Fort Yukon.

Now, the summer of 1936 was one for the record books. The states of Maryland (109 F), Indiana (116 F), Kansas (121 F), Louisiana (114 F), Minnesota (114 F), Nebraska (118 F), New Jersey (110 F), North Dakota (121 F), Pennsylvania (111 F), South Dakota (120 F), West Virginia (112 F) and Wisconsin (114 F) all set record high temperatures in July/August that year. It is funny how Al missed 1936 in his film. How could a divinity school drop-out, non-practicing lawyer and life long politician miss this opportunity to show that man caused “global warming” started decades ago? He is no doubt an expert in the field of climatology. Does anyone in America know what his academic and experiential credentials are? Maybe 1936 is a bad year to use to make a point because in February of that year the Dakotas, North and South, also set their current state record lows of minus 60 F and minus 58 F respectively.

Here is why I don’t believe Al. If a self-proclaimed climate expert doesn’t have a theory about the Medieval Warm Epoch (400 years of record high temperatures in the northern hemisphere, 900-1300 AD) or if they don’t know that water vapor is earth’s most abundant green house gas or if they can’t explain sun spots, I have no faith in their ability to predict the climate 100 years from now. Weather and over time the climate just doesn’t seem to want to cooperate with Al Gore and his unquestioning followers. Unpredictable climate will be around for another 2 or 3 billion years. Fortunately for humanity, Al and his fantasies will not.

I can only hope that the portion of the American public that fails to question the arguments for “man caused global warming” before economy destroying public policy decisions are made will wake up and pay attention. This will require some reading, analysis and critical thinking. They must get a grasp on reality before the 2008 elections.

As the global climate cools from a short term minor peak eight years ago, increasingly desperate environmentalists attempt scare tactics to enact their Luddite agendas before the true scope of their green house gas hoax it perceived. In support of this, bogus foundations issue nonsensical reports and studies such as that quoted. Perhaps these should be better left to the New Republic and CBS which have more experience in faking the news.

'man-made' global warming is the biggest crock of crap that the counter-culture has ever tried to get over on the consumer.

Another power grab by the left...this old world goes through periodic weather cycles and man in his arrogance thinks we're in control...HA!...don't drink the socialists Koolaid...

Global warming is no more than a scam to get more of our money.

Made made Golbal warming is pure B.S. It is time we start to remove these idiots who believe this crap from office and society.

It used to be zealot Christians on the sidewalk with a sandwich board heralding the coming "End Times". Now it's zealots of a different religion - the Church of Liberal Environmentalism.

It is sad they do not teach basic scientific reasoning in school any more. Let’s start with this very basic example:
The continental shelf extends approximately 200 miles off the shores off the Atlantic seaboard. About 12,000 years ago, when the northern US was covered with ice, this shelf was actually the coastline. When the ice began to melt, the ocean level rose and the sea covered the shelf and created the coastline we know today.
Class-Which man made event was responsible for this?

There is not one way anyone can convince me that we can stop the cycles of the Planet. Since recording the weather began, you can see a patern of cycles. For example, the National Hurricane Center's own website, show that there were more powerful and many more Hurricanes, during the 1930's. There was a warming trend during World War II. But hey what do I know, you have to be in the movies to be a real authority on anything. Just ask Leonardo Dicprio. Also, from what I understand cows are a big problem with all the methane gas they give off. I think that it would be a good thing for the enviorment if we all just ate porterhouse, and strip steaks each night....better yet, lets go to war against cattle...send armed vegetarians to the ranches and kill off all the polluting criminal cattle!
Hopefully, an asteroid will come and end it all........maybe then that will cause the temps to rise a bit.....

Remember the political upheaval which followed the lifting of the electricity price caps in MD last year?

Wait until you find out how much these kinds of proposals are going to increase your electric bill. Wait until you see the impact of these kinds of proposals on gas prices.

The left wing is throwing consumers under the bus. Repubs can turn their ship around if they will just be pro-consumer on this issue.

Fire and Ice

Journalists have warned of climate change for 100 years, but can’t decide weather we face an ice age or warming

By R. Warren Anderson
Research Analyst

Dan Gainor
The Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow

See Executive Summary | PDF Version

Sidebars
U.S. Funds Nearly $4 Billion in Climate-Change Research
The Times Warms to Cooling
Al Gore: Still Hot for Global Warming
Climate Change: Unpredictable Results
It was 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.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t 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, saying Canada could be “wiped out” or lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.”

Just as the weather has changed over time, so has the reporting – blowing hot or cold with short-term changes in temperature.

Following the ice age threats from the late 1800s, fears of an imminent and icy catastrophe were compounded in the 1920s by Arctic explorer Donald MacMillan and an obsession with the news of his polar expedition. As the Times put it on Feb. 24, 1895, “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.”

Those concerns lasted well into the late 1920s. But when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, newspapers and magazines responded with stories about the new threat. Once again the Times was out in front, cautioning “the earth is steadily growing warmer.”

After a while, that second phase of climate cautions began to fade. By 1954, Fortune magazine was warming to another cooling trend and ran an article titled “Climate – the Heat May Be Off.” As the United States and the old Soviet Union faced off, the media joined them with reports of a more dangerous Cold War of Man vs. Nature.

The New York Times ran warming stories into the late 1950s, but it too came around to the new fears. Just three decades ago, in 1975, the paper reported: “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.”

That trend, too, cooled off and was replaced by the current era of reporting on the dangers of global warming. Just six years later, on Aug. 22, 1981, the Times quoted seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude.”

In all, the print news media have warned of four separate climate changes in slightly more than 100 years – global cooling, warming, cooling again, and, perhaps not so finally, warming. Some current warming stories combine the concepts and claim the next ice age will be triggered by rising temperatures – the theme of the 2004 movie “The Day After Tomorrow.”

Recent global warming reports have continued that trend, morphing into a hybrid of both theories. News media that once touted the threat of “global warming” have moved on to the more flexible term “climate change.” As the Times described it, climate change can mean any major shift, making the earth cooler or warmer. In a March 30, 2006, piece on ExxonMobil’s approach to the environment, a reporter argued the firm’s chairman “has gone out of his way to soften Exxon’s public stance on climate change.”

The effect of the idea of “climate change” means that any major climate event can be blamed on global warming, supposedly driven by mankind.

Spring 2006 has been swamped with climate change hype in every type of media – books, newspapers, magazines, online, TV and even movies.

One-time presidential candidate Al Gore, a patron saint of the environmental movement, is releasing “An Inconvenient Truth” in book and movie form, warning, “Our ability to live is what is at stake.”

Despite all the historical shifting from one position to another, many in the media no longer welcome opposing views on the climate. CBS reporter Scott Pelley went so far as to compare climate change skeptics with Holocaust deniers.

“If I do an interview with [Holocaust survivor] Elie Wiesel,” Pelley asked, “am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?” he said in an interview on March 23 with CBS News’s PublicEye blog.

He added that the whole idea of impartial journalism just didn’t work for climate stories. “There becomes a point in journalism where striving for balance becomes irresponsible,” he said.

Pelley’s comments ignored an essential point: that 30 years ago, the media were certain about the prospect of a new ice age. And that is only the most recent example of how much journalists have changed their minds on this essential debate.

Some in the media would probably argue that they merely report what scientists tell them, but that would be only half true.

Journalists decide not only what they cover; they also decide whether to include opposing viewpoints. That’s a balance lacking in the current “debate.”

This isn’t a question of science. It’s a question of whether Americans can trust what the media tell them about science.

Global Cooling: 1954-1976

The ice age is coming, the sun’s zooming in
Engines stop running, the wheat is growing thin
A nuclear era, but I have no fear
’Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river
-- The Clash
“London Calling,”
released in 1979

The first Earth Day was celebrated on April 22, 1970, amidst hysteria about the dangers of a new ice age. The media had been spreading warnings of a cooling period since the 1950s, but those alarms grew louder in the 1970s.

Three months before, on January 11, The Washington Post told readers to “get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may be yet to come,” in an article titled “Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age.” The article quoted climatologist Reid Bryson, who said “there’s no relief in sight” about the cooling trend.

Journalists took the threat of another ice age seriously. Fortune magazine actually won a “Science Writing Award” from the American Institute of Physics for its own analysis of the danger. “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have concluded that it is very bad news indeed,” Fortune announced in February 1974.

“It is the root cause of a lot of that unpleasant weather around the world and they warn that it carries the potential for human disasters of unprecedented magnitude,” the article continued.

That article also emphasized Bryson’s extreme doomsday predictions. “There is very important climatic change going on right now, and it’s not merely something of academic interest.”

Bryson warned, “It is something that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth – like a billion people starving. The effects are already showing up in a rather drastic way.” However, the world population increased by 2.5 billion since that warning.

Fortune had been emphasizing the cooling trend for 20 years. In 1954, it picked up on the idea of a frozen earth and ran an article titled “Climate – the Heat May Be Off.”

The story debunked the notion that “despite all you may have read, heard, or imagined, it’s been growing cooler – not warmer – since the Thirties.”

The claims of global catastrophe were remarkably similar to what the media deliver now about global warming.

“The cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations,” wrote Lowell Ponte in his 1976 book “The Cooling.”

If the proper measures weren’t taken, he cautioned, then the cooling would lead to “world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come by the year 2000.”

There were more warnings. The Nov. 15, 1969, “Science News” quoted meteorologist Dr. J. Murray Mitchell Jr. about global cooling worries. “How long the current cooling trend continues is one of the most important problems of our civilization,” he said.

If the cooling continued for 200 to 300 years, the earth could be plunged into an ice age, Mitchell continued.

Six years later, the periodical reported “the cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”

A city in a snow globe illustrated that March 1, 1975, article, while the cover showed an ice age obliterating an unfortunate city.

In 1975, cooling went from “one of the most important problems” to a first-place tie for “death and misery.” “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind,” said Nigel Calder, a former editor of “New Scientist.”

He claimed it was not his disposition to be a “doomsday man.” His analysis came from “the facts [that] have emerged” about past ice ages, according to the July/August International Wildlife Magazine.

The idea of a worldwide deep freeze snowballed.

Naturally, science fiction authors embraced the topic. Writer John Christopher delivered a book on the coming ice age in 1962 called “The World in Winter.”

In Christopher’s novel, England and other “rich countries of the north” broke down under the icy onslaught.

“The machines stopped, the land was dead and the people went south,” he explained.

James Follett took a slightly different tack. His book “Ice” was about “a rogue Antarctic iceberg” that “becomes a major world menace.” Follett in his book conceived “the teeth chattering possibility of how Nature can punish those who foolishly believe they have mastered her.”

Global Warming: 1929-1969

Today’s global warming advocates probably don’t even realize their claims aren’t original. Before the cooling worries of the ’70s, America went through global warming fever for several decades around World War II.

The nation entered the “longest warm spell since 1776,” according to a March 27, 1933, New York Times headline. Shifting climate gears from ice to heat, the Associated Press article began “That next ice age, if one is coming … is still a long way off.”

One year earlier, the paper reported that “the earth is steadily growing warmer” in its May 15 edition. The Washington Post felt the heat as well and titled an article simply “Hot weather” on August 2, 1930.

That article, reminiscent of a stand-up comedy routine, told readers that the heat was so bad, people were going to be saying, “Ah, do you remember that torrid summer of 1930. It was so hot that * * *.”

The Los Angeles Times beat both papers to the heat with the headline: “Is another ice age coming?” on March 11, 1929. Its answer to that question: “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer.”

Meteorologist J. B. Kincer of the federal weather bureau published a scholarly article on the warming world in the September 1933 “Monthly Weather Review.”

The article began discussing the “wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather” and asked “Is our climate changing?” Kincer proceeded to document the warming trend. Out of 21 winters examined from 1912-33 in Washington, D.C., 18 were warmer than normal and all of the past 13 were mild.

New Haven, Conn., experienced warmer temperatures, with evidence from records that went “back to near the close of the Revolutionary War,” claimed the analysis. Using records from various other cities, Kincer showed that the world was warming.

British amateur meteorologist G. S. Callendar made a bold claim five years later that many would recognize now. He argued that man was responsible for heating up the planet with carbon dioxide emissions – in 1938.

It wasn’t a common notion at the time, but he published an article in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society on the subject. “In the following paper I hope to show that such influence is not only possible, but is actually occurring at the present time,” Callendar wrote. He went on the lecture circuit describing carbon-dioxide-induced global warming.

But Callendar didn’t conclude his article with an apocalyptic forecast, as happens in today’s global warming stories. Instead he said the change “is likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the provision of heat and power.” Furthermore, it would allow for greater agriculture production and hold off the return of glaciers “indefinitely.”

On November 6 the following year, The Chicago Daily Tribune ran an article titled “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise.” It began, “Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities thuout [sic] the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades.”

The rising mercury trend continued into the ’50s. The New York Times reported that “we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century” on Aug. 10, 1952. According to the Times, the evidence was the introduction of cod in the Eskimo’s diet – a fish they had not encountered before 1920 or so. The following year, the paper reported that studies confirmed summers and winters were getting warmer.

This warming gave the Eskimos more to handle than cod. “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures,” announced the Times during the middle of winter, on Feb. 15, 1959. Glaciers were melting in Alaska and the “ice in the Arctic ocean is about half as thick as it was in the late nineteenth century.”

A decade later, the Times reaffirmed its position that “the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two,” according to polar explorer Col. Bernt Bachen in the Feb. 20, 1969, piece.

One of the most surprising aspects of the global warming claims of the 20th Century is that they followed close behind similar theories of another major climate change – that one an ice age.

Global Cooling: 1895-1932

The world knew all about cold weather in the 1800s. America and Europe had escaped a 500-year period of cooling, called the Little Ice Age, around 1850. So when the Times warned of new cooling in 1895, it was a serious prediction.

On Feb. 24, 1895, the Times announced “Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again.” The article debated “whether recent and long-continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period.” Those concerns were brought on by increases in northern glaciers and in the severity of Scandinavia’s climate.

Fear spread through the print media over the next three decades. A few months after the sinking of the Titanic, on Oct. 7, 1912, page one of the Times reported, “Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age.”

Scientists knew of four ice ages in the past, leading Professor Nathaniel Schmidt of Cornell University to conclude that one day we will need scientific knowledge “to combat the perils” of the next one.

The same day the Los Angeles Times ran an article about Schmidt as well, entitled “Fifth ice age is on the way.” It was subtitled “Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.”

That end-of-the-world tone wasn’t unusual. “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada,” declared a front-page Chicago Tribune headline on Aug. 9, 1923. “Professor Gregory” of Yale University stated that “another world ice-epoch is due.” He was the American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress and warned that North America would disappear as far south as the Great Lakes, and huge parts of Asia and Europe would be “wiped out.”

Gregory’s predictions went on and on. Switzerland would be “entirely obliterated,” and parts of South America would be “overrun.” The good news – “Australia has nothing to fear.” The Washington Post picked up on the story the following day, announcing “Ice Age Coming Here.”

Talk of the ice age threat even reached France. In a New York Times article from Sept. 20, 1922, a penguin found in France was viewed as an “ice-age harbinger.”

Even though the penguin probably escaped from the Antarctic explorer Sir Ernest Shackleton’s ship, it “caused considerable consternation in the country.”

Some of the sound of the Roaring ’20s was the noise of a coming ice age – prominently covered by The New York Times. Capt. Donald MacMillan began his Arctic expeditions in 1908 with Robert Peary. He was going to Greenland to test the “Menace of a new ice age,” as the Times reported on June 10, 1923.

The menace was coming from “indications in Arctic that have caused some apprehension.” Two weeks later the Times reported that MacMillan would get data to help determine “whether there is any foundation for the theory which has been advanced in some quarters that another ice age is impending.”

On July 4, 1923, the paper announced that the “Explorer Hopes to Determine Whether new ‘Ice Age’ is Coming.”

The Atlanta Constitution also had commented on the impending ice age on July 21, 1923. MacMillan found the “biggest glacier” and reported on the great increase of glaciers in the Arctic as compared to earlier measures.

Even allowing for “the provisional nature of the earlier surveys,” glacial activity had greatly augmented, “according to the men of science.” Not only was “the world of science” following MacMillan, so too were the “radio fans.”

The Christian Science Monitor reported on the potential ice age as well, on July 3, 1923. “Captain MacMillan left Wicasset, Me., two weeks ago for Sydney, the jumping-off point for the north seas, announcing that one of the purposes of his cruise was to determine whether there is beginning another ‘ice age,’ as the advance of glaciers in the last 70 years would seem to indicate.”

Then on Sept. 18, 1924, The New York Times declared the threat was real, saying “MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age.”

Concerns about global cooling continued. Swedish scientist Rutger Sernander also forecasted a new ice age. He headed a Swedish committee of scientists studying “climatic development” in the Scandinavian country.

According to the LA Times on April 6, 1924, he claimed there was “scientific ground for believing” that the conditions “when all winds will bring snow, the sun cannot prevail against the clouds, and three winters will come in one, with no summer between,” had already begun.

That ice age talk cooled in the early 1930s. But The Atlantic in 1932 puffed the last blast of Arctic air in the article “This Cold, Cold World.” Author W. J. Humphries compared the state of the earth to the state of the world before other ice ages. He wrote “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age.”

Concluding the article he noted the uncertainty of such things, but closed with “we do know that the climatic gait of this our world is insecure and unsteady, teetering, indeed, on an ice age, however near or distant the inevitable fall.”

Cooling and Warming Both Threats to Food
Just like today, the news media were certain about the threat that an ice age posed.

In the 1970s, as the world cooled down, the fear was that mankind couldn’t grow enough food with a longer winter. “Climate Changes Endanger World’s Food Output,” declared a New York Times headline on Aug. 8, 1974, right in the heat of summer.

“Bad weather this summer and the threat of more of it to come hang ominously over every estimate of the world food situation,” the article began.

It continued saying the dire consequences of the cooling climate created a deadly risk of suffering and mass starvation.

Various climatologists issued a statement that “the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade,” reported the Dec. 29, 1974, New York Times. If policy makers did not account for this oncoming doom, “mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence” would result.

Time magazine delivered its own gloomy outlook on the “World Food Crisis” on June 24 of that same year and followed with the article “Weather Change: Poorer Harvests” on November 11.

According to the November story, the mean global surface temperature had fallen just 1 degree Fahrenheit since the 1940s. Yet this small drop “trimmed a week to ten days from the growing season” in the earth’s breadbasket regions.

The prior advances of the Green Revolution that bolstered world agriculture would be vulnerable to the lower temperatures and lead to “agricultural disasters.”

Newsweek was equally downbeat in its article “The Cooling World.” “There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically,” which would lead to drastically decreased food production, it said.

“The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only ten years from now,” the magazine told readers on April 28 the following year.

This, Newsweek said, was based on the “central fact” that “the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down.” Despite some disagreement on the cause and extent of cooling, meteorologists were “almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.”

Despite Newsweek’s claim, agricultural productivity didn’t drop for the rest of the century. It actually increased at an “annual rate of 1.76% over the period 1948 to 2002,” according to the Department of Agriculture.

That didn’t deter the magazine from warning about declining agriculture once again 30 years later – this time because the earth was getting warmer. “Livestock are dying. Crops are withering,” it said in the Aug. 8, 2005, edition. It added that “extremely dry weather of recent months has spawned swarms of locusts” and they were destroying crops in France. Was global warming to blame? “Evidence is mounting to support just such fears,” determined the piece.

U.S. News & World Report was agriculturally pessimistic as well. “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” That was just 13 years ago, in 1993.

That wasn’t the first time warming was blamed for influencing agriculture. In 1953 William J. Baxter wrote the book “Today’s Revolution in Weather!” on the warming climate. His studies showed “that the heat zone is moving northward and the winters are getting milder with less snowfall.”

Baxter titled a chapter in his book “Make Room For Trees, Grains, Vegetables and Bugs on the North Express!” The warming world led him to estimate that within 10 years Canada would produce more wheat than the United States, though he said America’s corn dominance would remain.
It was more than just crops that were in trouble. Baxter also noted that fishermen in Maine could catch tropical and semi-tropical fish, which were just beginning to appear. The green crab, which also migrated north, was “slowly killing” the profitable industry of steamer clams.

Ice, Ice Baby
Another subject was prominent whether journalists were warning about global warming or an ice age: glaciers. For 110 years, scientists eyed the mammoth mountains of ice to determine the nature of the temperature shift. Reporters treated the glaciers like they were the ultimate predictors of climate.

In 1895, geologists thought the world was freezing up again due to the “great masses of ice” that were frequently seen farther south than before.

The New York Times reported that icebergs were so bad, and they decreased the temperature of Iceland so much, that inhabitants fearing a famine were “emigrating to North America.”

In 1902, when Teddy Roosevelt became the first president to ride in a car, the Los Angeles Times delivered a story that should be familiar to modern readers. The paper’s story on “Disappearing Glaciers” in the Alps said the glaciers were not “running away,” but rather “deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means their final annihilation.”

The melting led to alpine hotel owners having trouble keeping patrons. It was established that it was a “scientific fact” that the glaciers were “surely disappearing.” That didn’t happen. Instead they grew once more.

More than 100 years after their “final annihilation” was declared, the LA Times was once again writing the same story. An Associated Press story in the Aug. 21, 2005, paper showed how glacier stories never really change. According to the article: “A sign on a sheer cliff wall nearby points to a mountain hut. It should have been at eye level but is more than 60 feet above visitors’ heads. That’s how much the glacier has shrunk since the sign went up 35 years ago.”

But glacier stories didn’t always show them melting away like ice cubes in a warm drink. The Boston Daily Globe in 1923 reported one purpose of MacMillan’s Arctic expedition was to determine the beginning of the next ice age, “as the advance of glaciers in the last 70 years would indicate.”

When that era of ice-age reports melted away, retreating glaciers were again highlighted. In 1953’s “Today’s Revolution in Weather!” William Baxter wrote that “the recession of glaciers over the whole earth affords the best proof that climate is warming,” despite the fact that the world had been in its cooling phase for more than a decade when he wrote it. He gave examples of glaciers melting in Lapland, the Alps, Mr. Rainer and Antarctica.

Time magazine in 1951 noted permafrost in Russia was receding northward up to 100 yards per year. In 1952, The New York Times kept with the warming trend. It reported the global warming studies of climatologist Dr. Hans W. Ahlmann, whose “trump card” “has been the melting glaciers.” The next year the Times said “nearly all the great ice sheets are in retreat.”

U.S. News and World Report agreed, noted that “winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing” on Jan. 8, 1954.

In the ’70s, glaciers did an about face. Ponte in “The Cooling” warned that “The rapid advance of some glaciers has threatened human settlements in Alaska, Iceland, Canada, China, and the Soviet Union.”

Time contradicted its 1951 report and stated that the cooling trend was here to stay. The June 24, 1974, article was based on those omnipresent “telltale signs” such as the “unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland.”

Even The Christian Science Monitor in the same year noted “glaciers which had been retreating until 1940 have begun to advance.” The article continued, “the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool.”

The New York Times noted that in 1972 the “mantle of polar ice increased by 12 percent” and had not returned to “normal” size.

North Atlantic sea temperatures declined, and shipping routes were “cluttered with abnormal amounts of ice.”

Furthermore, the permafrost in Russia and Canada was advancing southward, according to the December 29 article that closed out 1974.

Decades later, the Times seemed confused by melting ice. On Dec. 8, 2002, the paper ran an article titled “Arctic Ice Is Melting at Record Level, Scientists Say.” The first sentence read “The melting of Greenland glaciers and Arctic Ocean sea ice this past summer reached levels not seen in decades.”

Was the ice melting at record levels, as the headline stated, or at a level seen decades ago, as the first line mentioned?

On Sept. 14, 2005, the Times reported the recession of glaciers “seen from Peru to Tibet to Greenland” could accelerate and become abrupt.

This, in turn, could increase the rise of the sea level and block the Gulf Stream. Hence “a modern counterpart of the 18,000-year-old global-warming event could trigger a new ice age.”

Government Comes to the Rescue
Mankind managed to survive three phases of fear about global warming and cooling without massive bureaucracy and government intervention, but aggressive lobbying by environmental groups finally changed that reality.

The Kyoto treaty, new emissions standards and foreign regulations are but a few examples.

Getting the government involved to control the weather isn’t a new concept. When the earth was cooling, The New York Times reported on a panel that recommended a multimillion-dollar research program to combat the threat.

That program was to start with $18 million a year in funding and increase to about $67 million by 1980, according to the Jan. 19, 1975, Times. That would be more than $200 million in today’s dollars.

Weather warnings in the ’70s from “reputable researchers” worried policy-makers so much that scientists at a National Academy of Sciences meeting “proposed the evacuation of some six million people” from parts of Africa, reported the Times on Dec. 29, 1974.

That article went on to tell of the costly and unnecessary plans of the old Soviet Union. It diverted time from Cold War activities to scheme about diverting the coming cold front.

It had plans to reroute “large Siberian rivers, melting Arctic ice and damming the Bering Strait” to help warm the “frigid fringes of the Soviet Union.”

Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” noted climatologists’ admission that “solutions” to global cooling “such as melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers,” could result in more problems than they would solve.

More recently, 27 European climatologists have become worried that the warming trend “may be irreversible, at least over most of the coming century,” according to Time magazine on Nov. 13, 2000. The obvious solution? Bigger government.

They “should start planning immediately to adapt to the new extremes of weather that their citizens will face – with bans on building in potential flood plains in the north, for example, and water conservation measures in the south.”

Almost 50 policy and research recommendations came with the report.

The news media have given space to numerous alleged solutions to our climate problems.

Stephen Salter of the University of Edinburgh had some unusual ideas to repel an effect of global warming. In 2002 he had the notion of creating a rainmaker, “which looks like a giant egg whisk,” according to the Evening News of Edinburgh on Dec. 2, 2002.

The Atlantic edition of Newsweek on June 30, 2003, reported on the whisk. The British government gave him 105,000 pounds to research it.

Besides promoting greater prosperity and peace, it could “lift enough seawater to lower sea levels by a meter, stemming the rise of the oceans – one of the most troublesome consequences of global warming.” The rain created would be redirected toward land using the wind’s direction.

Instead of just fixing a symptom of global warming, Salter now wants to head it off. He wants to spray water droplets into low altitude clouds to increase their whiteness and block out more sunlight.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has considered other ways to lower temperatures and the media were there to give them credence.

Newsweek on May 20, 1991, reported on five ways to fight warming from the National Research Council, the operating arm of the NAS.

The first idea was to release “billions of aluminized, hydrogen-filled balloons” to reflect sunlight. To reflect more sunlight, “fire one-ton shells filled with dust into the upper atmosphere.” Airplane engines could pollute more in order to release a “layer of soot” to block the sun. Should any sunlight remain, 50,000 orbiting mirrors, 39 square miles each, could block it out.

With any heat left, “infrared lasers on mountains” could be used “to zap rising CFCs,” rendering them harmless.

Global Warming: 1981-Present and Beyond
The media have bombarded Americans almost daily with the most recent version of the climate apocalypse.

Global warming has replaced the media’s ice age claims, but the results somehow have stayed the same – the deaths of millions or even billions of people, widespread devastation and starvation.

The recent slight increase in temperature could “quite literally, alter the fundamentals of life on the planet” argued the Jan. 18, 2006, Washington Post.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times wrote a column that lamented the lack of federal spending on global warming.

“We spend about $500 billion a year on a military budget, yet we don’t want to spend peanuts to protect against climate change,” he said in a Sept. 27, 2005, piece.

Kristof’s words were noteworthy, not for his argument about spending, but for his obvious use of the term “climate change.” While his column was filled with references to “global warming,” it also reflected the latest trend as the coverage has morphed once again.

The two terms are often used interchangeably, but can mean something entirely different.

The latest threat has little to do with global warming and has everything to do with … everything.

The latest predictions claim that warming might well trigger another ice age.

The warm currents of the Gulf Stream, according to a 2005 study by the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, U.K., have decreased 30 percent.

This has raised “fears that it might fail entirely and plunge the continent into a mini ice age,” as the Gulf Stream regulates temperatures in Europe and the eastern United States. This has “long been predicted” as a potential ramification of global warming.

Hollywood picked up on this notion before the study and produced “The Day After Tomorrow.” In the movie global warming triggered an immediate ice age. People had to dodge oncoming ice. Americans were fleeing to Mexico. Wolves were on the prowl. Meanwhile our hero, a government paleoclimatologist, had to go to New York City to save his son from the catastrophe.

But it’s not just a potential ice age. Every major weather event becomes somehow linked to “climate change.”

Numerous news reports connected Hurricane Katrina with changing global temperatures. Droughts, floods and more have received similar media treatment.

Even The New York Times doesn’t go that far – yet.

In an April 23, 2006, piece, reporter Andrew C. Revkin gave no credence to that coverage. “At the same time, few scientists agree with the idea that the recent spate of potent hurricanes, European heat waves, African drought and other weather extremes are, in essence, our fault. There is more than enough natural variability in nature to mask a direct connection, they say.”

Unfortunately, that brief brush with caution hasn’t touched the rest of the media.
Time magazine’s recent cover story included this terrifying headline:

“Polar Ice Caps Are Melting Faster Than Ever... More And More; Land Is Being Devastated By Drought... Rising Waters Are Drowning Low-Lying Communities... By Any Measure, Earth Is At ... The Tipping Point The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame. Why the crisis hit so soon —and what we can do about it”

That attitude reflects far more of the current media climate. As the magazine claimed, many of today’s weather problems can be blamed on the changing climate.

“Disasters have always been with us and surely always will be. But when they hit this hard and come this fast — when the emergency becomes commonplace —something has gone grievously wrong. That something is global warming,” Time said.

Methodology
The Business & Media Institute (BMI) examined how the major media have covered the issue of climate change over a long period of time. Because television only gained importance in the post-World War II period, BMI looked at major print outlets.

There were limitations with that approach because some major publications lack the lengthy history that others enjoy. However, the search covered more than 30 publications from the 1850s to 2006 — including newspapers, magazines, journals and books.

Recent newspaper and magazine articles were obtained from Lexis-Nexis. All other magazine articles were acquired from the Library of Congress either in print or microfilm.

Older newspapers were obtained from ProQuest. The extensive bibliography includes every publication cited in this report. BMI looked through thousands of headlines and chose hundreds of stories to analyze.

Dates on the time periods for cooling and warming reporting phases are approximate, and are derived from the stories that BMI analyzed.

Conclusion
What can one conclude from 110 years of conflicting climate coverage except that the weather changes and the media are just as capricious?

Certainly, their record speaks for itself. Four separate and distinct climate theories targeted at a public taught to believe the news. Only all four versions of the truth can’t possibly be accurate.

For ordinary Americans to judge the media’s version of current events about global warming, it is necessary to admit that journalists have misrepresented the story three other times.

Yet no one in the media is owning up to that fact. Newspapers that pride themselves on correction policies for the smallest errors now find themselves facing a historical record that is enormous and unforgiving.

It is time for the news media to admit a consistent failure to report this issue fairly or accurately, with due skepticism of scientific claims.

Recommendations
It would be difficult for the media to do a worse job with climate change coverage. Perhaps the most important suggestion would be to remember the basic rules about journalism and set aside biases — a simple suggestion, but far from easy given the overwhelming extent of the problem.

Three of the guidelines from the Society of Professional Journalists are especially appropriate:

*

“Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.”

*

“Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.”

*

“Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.”

That last bullet point could apply to almost any major news outlet in the United States. They could all learn something and take into account the historical context of media coverage of climate change.

Some other important points include:

*

Don’t Stifle Debate: Most scientists do agree that the earth has warmed a little more than a degree in the last 100 years. That doesn’t mean that scientists concur mankind is to blame. Even if that were the case, the impact of warming is unclear.

People in northern climes might enjoy improved weather and longer growing seasons.

*

Don’t Ignore the Cost: Global warming solutions pushed by environmental groups are notoriously expensive. Just signing on to the Kyoto treaty would have cost the United States several hundred billion dollars each year, according to estimates from the U.S. government generated during President Bill Clinton’s term.

Every story that talks about new regulations or forced cutbacks on emissions should discuss the cost of those proposals.

*

Report Accurately on Statistics: Accurate temperature records have been kept only since the end of the 19th Century, shortly after the world left the Little Ice Age. So while recorded temperatures are increasing, they are not the warmest ever. A 2003 study by Harvard and the Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, “20th Century Climate Not So Hot,” “determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1,000 years.

A warmer world would sustain a greater a human population. What's the problem even if MMGW were true?

P.S. Dr David Hill is a fraud

It is vain, VAIN, and arrogant to think humans can make a significant change in what nature does.

If this is such a compelling issues, if it is such a sweet deal then why does it have to be shoved down our throats with command and control government controls? Global warming is a bureaucratic scam. This committee should begin a full and comprehensive audit of all the tax money that has been poured down the government rathole since Jimmy Carter interrupted our evenings to show off the new sweater his mommy gave him. What do we have to show for all of the research, boondoggles, subsidizing urban transportation systems? I'd rather have the money.

These are little clues to tell if a person is lying. They say...
1. We must act now.
2. We only have 10 years left.
3. The evidence is conclusive and there is no longer need for debate.
4. Humankind will very likely become extinct in this very century.
5. If we start now, it will take 25 years.
6. If we dont do it now, it will be too late.
7. Please send your money to...
8. There is no debate about this in the scientific community.
9. We will have to change the way we live.
10. ALGORE agrees with it.

I sick and tired of the "watermelons" (green on the outside, red on the inside) referring to carbon dioxide as a POLLUTANT. It's deception at its worst.

Wake up, people! Without CO2 in our atmosphere, all plants would die, and we would too.

It's the SUN stupid!!!

The sky is falling oh my the sky is falling

lions tigers and bears oh my...oops sorry wrong scare tactic

This week marks the start of the Goracle's video tour in England. The English courts have rolled out the FICTION label to firmly affix to the Goracle's diatribe.

The sun will have the last laugh. Ever wonder why the alarmists wrote the sun out of the picture? Go to the beach, get some global warming, but not too much.

And the real bomb, just last week the scientists examining the data from the latest greatest satellites find the signature of global warming does not exist in the atmosphere. How cool is that, it's not there. Search for more ... or read this short summary If the satellites can't find it, it is not there. End of story AGW is a hoax.

"Global warming" is liberal, socialist poppy cock being foisted upon the moronic victims of our government schools.

I'm suppose to believe global warming as predicted by the same clowns that can't forcast the weather past 6 PM today?

Joe

alGore isn't a non-practicing lawyer, he flunked out of law school. However he was the only person ever to be drafted out of the military to go to school. That is why he only served seven months in Vietnam, he was drafted to go to Divinity School, but he dropped out of there, something about no Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll.

And the earth warms and the earth cools. When Washington crossed that river in the famous painting, there were guys with oars, pushing away the chunks of ice. There ain't been ice of any decent size in that river for over 150 years. Now how could the earth warm up, if there wasn't a SUV there?

Dear Dr. Hill, or to any "scientist" that is behind this global warming scam.

Someday, when you can start accurately predicting if it will rain 3 days from now, MAYBE, and then just MAYBE we will start to believe you.

If you continue to keep coming after our money to re-distribute it around the world, expect a majoruprising that will start at your front door.

I like the part that says the european utitlities got rich off the warming legislation over there.

I wonder if the energy companies are behind the GW scam over here, too?

Am I the only one who finds it strange that the very same people who were trying to enact left wing liberal socialist policy and have historically been anti-corporate and anti development are coincidentally the very same people who now scream and warn about the catastrophic dangers of man-made global warming the loudest? Oh, and what a surprise, the only way to stop this doom is to… wait for it… That’s right - Institute left wing liberal socialist policy that is anti-corporate and anti development. Gosh, that’s surprising…….. Oh, and why don’t you add a few billion in extra taxes while you’re at it?

It's just a matter of time before these new age Earth Worshippers erect their Gaia idol and start sacrificing us "unbelievers" at it's altar.

When they correct the problems with the official temperature measuring stations we will find that warming is not taking place at all. Let's hope they come up with valid measuring stations.

Lazy thinkers and public apathy = Successful Global Warming alarmists who agrandize themselves on ignorance. Con-artists will always be with us.

U-S-A doesnt stand for U-se Solarenergy A-hole! I say stick all the tree huggers and hippie's in a oil refinery. Then they'll get it. Don't tell me my Hummer with special extra polluting exhaust package is ruining the economy or I'll run you over hippie scum! I think the best thing we can do is make biodiesel out of hippies. Run that in your hybrids pretty pants. The fact is, global warming probably is happening, but capitalism is more important. Not to mention, they say that the pollution only hurts really young kids with asthma. If you're old enough to read this, you ain't got nothin' to worry about! Screw the next generation. They're all hippie losers. Even your kids will be hippie loser's because of the internet. Take that Gore! My fellow americans, if you want to save the planet, buy an SUV and run over anyone who questions your patriotism. That's the american way. Take it or go back to Mexico!

Appears that congress is about to vote on another mistake based on incorrect intelligence

The implied threat of global warming is the strongest indicator to date of just how many morons there are in the world. The facts should trump our fears. But the left, and the media in particular, does a great job of hiding facts and trumpeting illogical propaganda. If they can sell the global warming hoax, they can sell anything.

Everyone buy your $2 cloth grocery bags for all your bags of groceries so we don't all become extinct in the next century. And donate $$ to Al's carbon offset company everytime you fly your private jet. Do it because it makes you FEEL good. Right?

To David Hill: Bern, baby bern in beautiful Suisse. Keep your apocalyptic fantasies to yourself. So what if the climate changes? Fewer Michiganders will have to move to Florida. If you haven't noticed, the US population is voting with their feet, moving south and west to WARMER climes. Even moving TO the desert. As for the official bloggers on this page, you three are picture perfect liberal pinheads. The newspapers in this country made a big mistake when they decided to show staff pictures to their readers. Exposed the frizzy-haired liberal baby boomer women and the aging hippie bearded pseudo-academics for who they are. Your bias is showing and you need to get real jobs. Your industry is in deep decline. Thanks for your time.

This is just amazingly stupid. First of all, the suggestion that global warming is being cause by humans is a complete scam. Second, the enviromentalists always seem to focus on one side of the problem (if it actually does exist). From the last research I have seen, one tree will absorb the total emissions of about 40 cars. If we were really concerned with saving the planet, instead of trying to gut our economy, our government should be focusing on how to manage our forests and natural resources. I guess our brilliant representatives in Washington will finally stumble across that idea after we have cut down the last tree in the U.S. for another shopping mall or Starbucks.

When I was in elementary school in the 1960's, our "Weekly Reader" warned us about the coming ice age that would result from global cooling!

The current media-hyped frenzy about global warming is no more valid than the "ice age" prediction. However, global warming (and the extreme costs to implement the recommended remediation measures) would significantly slow down the U.S. economy. Perhaps that's the real goal of the global warming alarmists?

So little truth, so little time.

http://www.heartland.org/

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/415.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/04/AR2006070400789.html

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

Two groups of people benifit from the global warming scare, those that make money on on the lies, though that get into office on them.

They can't accurately predict the weather for tomorrow. Why should people believe incomplete hypothetical models for a hundred years into the future from people with a vested interest in the outcome? How lazy, arrogant, and self-centered is it to ignore the complexity of the issue and just say 'man' is the cause of warming. Chicken little died of old age ya know.

This will just make U.S. products more expensive and further damage the nation's foreign trade balance.
European countries signed on to the Kyoto treaty but have honored it mostly in the breach. It is primarily a feel-good pact that accomplishes little or nothing.
Predictions that mankind will vanish soon are about as valid as the much-heralded report some years ago, supported by thousands of the "finest minds," that much of the world would starve to death by the year 2000.
If global warming warnings are to be taken seriously three things need to happen:
First, the studies need to be based not on computer models that can be manipulated, consciously or unconsciously, to produce results the researchers want, but on human calculations that meet the first test of any valid scientific conclusion, that they can be replicated by others.
Second, the data collections need to reach much father back than most do today. Any climate calculation that takes into account only data from the past 50 years is just junk. It does not prove that the phenomenon in question is not part of a long-term cycle.
Recent stories warned that global warming is affecting wineries in France. It turns out that in the regions most cited, careful long-term records show that the current warm cycle merely repeats a previous cycle that peaked around the year 1540.
Third, global warming research needs to be decoupled from fund raising and applications for grants, because scientists are always dependent on grants and donations, and many if not most will go where the bucks are. If there were suddenly lots of grants for research questioning man-made global warming, we would see many reports saying it is false or overblown.
If society could take one step toward improving public understanding of science and scientific research, it would be to require all who work in the news media to take solid courses in physics, chemistry, biology, calculus and the history of science. We would then get much better coverage of issues such as global warming, with reports discussed and properly questioned, as other topics in the media are questioned.
(Not written by a "finest mind," perhaps, but by someone who has taken all the courses mentioned above and worked for 22 years in the news medis and another 15 for one of the better-known American universities.)

AGAIN! Another vote about nothing...What a bunch of idiot clowns.

I suppose we're to be impressed by Dr. Hill, Bern, Switzerland? What a bunch of BS. Your liberal cohorts may lap it up, but clearly BS. From wherever your degree came, they should be ashamed for granting same. Unfortunately, they are likely proud.

The concept of man-made and/or man-controlled Global Warming is pure lunacy and not deserving of a single dime of penny dollars.

Brought to you by the same guys who brought you Y2K. Temperatures rise and fall, they have throughout the history of the planet and will continue to. We don't live in a static world.

Have we signaled the all-clear on the coming ice age, ozone holes, bird flu or acid rain yet? I'm still 2 or 3 hysterical panics behind right now.

Gosh! But we're doing nothing about global warming on Mars! How terra-centric!

oh for the love of god,
Global Warming is simply communism & collectivism.

All of this is crap. I hope the Republicans are able to shut this down. If not, Bush needs to pull out his veto pen. The last thing this country needs is more regulation and taxation.

So, if it’s already too late, and they designed a solution that would take 25 years to implement (not to mention the poor grammar of someone presumably familiar with the English language), doesn’t that mean that whoever funded them completely wasted their money because "The World Innovation Foundation" had no idea what it was doing, therefore negating Dr. Hill's opinion?

Sure it's tenuous, but not any less fragile than the "logic" of global warming. My stance is this: the day that these yokels can tell me for sure whether or not it's going to rain tomorrow, I'll start paying attention to their doomsday scenarios.

I think much of this is just an excuse for the accumulation of more government power in deciding the conduct of our personal lives. Historically that 's what governments do, aqquire power. It would seem the citizens are ready to willing give it that power after ingesting a avalache government propoganda concering cataclysmic climate change.

Reduce 90% of carbon emissions in Chesapeake Bay by 2050? Do people realize what draconian changes that would have to be made in their current lifestyle? Even the former Soviet Union couldn't carry out such a massive plan.

And who collects the "fines" when corporatations or citizens are unable to comply with arbitrary carbon emission standards? Government. It's a twofer. More power and more tax revenue.

All this carbon footprint reduction may look good on paper but I predict an open rebellion if government ever decides to really implement a plan that would really reduce it.

Does anyone not believe that the left would be demanding wealth transfers based on global cooling if that were the case?

Never mind that the positive affects of natural global warming probably outweigh the negative. The left really doesn't want the cyclical ice age to return any faster - they just want to use junk science for political/ personal gains and economic transfers. And it is working.

Most scientists know that all this posturing about minor changes in carbon footprints will not make an iota of difference, but many livelihoods and research grants can be sustained.

what a LOAD of crap!

the climate has actually changed drastically many times over the history of this planet.

leave it to self-hating liberals (yeah, i'm not crazy about your worthless arses either) to blame themselves . . . or, more importantly, the United States / capitalism.

what a bunch of freaks . . . and the spineless who will not challenge their BS.

Haven't sea levels been rising consistently for several thousand years? I don't believe man has any means to control the weather, even if he wanted to. If the earth is warming, there's nothing we can do about it. If the earth was cooling, there is nothing we could do about it. If the earth is warming, that sounds preferably to a cooling earth. Wouldn't growing seasons be lenghtened? Wouldn't more land become available for farming? Wouldn't few human deaths occur due to the weather? People living in warming latitudes suffer fewer weather related deaths every year than people in cooler latitudes, don't they? It seems like a positive development if it's really happening.

Krypton is going to explode too.

I need to build a rocket.

And what CK said. Yeah.

To all Global warming alarmist. Why are icecaps on Mars melting ?

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY'S MANIFESTO

1. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by lack of Federal funding.

2. You have to believe that the school system that can't teach a fourth grader how to read is some how the best qualified to teach those same children all about sex.

3. You have to believe that guns, in the hands of law abiding Americans, are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese communists.

4. You have to believe there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by Americans driving SUVs.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.

7. You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand.

8. You have to believe that business creates oppression and governments create prosperity.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists from Seattle do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe that the U.S. Military, not evil and tyrannical regimes, start wars.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee, or Thomas Edison.

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.

16. You have to believe Hillary Clinton is all about "progress" and not power. She just wants to help us out of the archaic system of governing that we have been subjected to since our founding.

17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried, is because the right people haven't been in charge. (I've got news for you. It has never worked because the RIGHT people have been in charge.)

18. You have to believe Republicans telling the truth belong in jail, but a cheat, liar and sex offender belongs in the White House and you would vote him back in there in a New York Minute (if you could).

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese is somehow in the best interest of the United States.

21. You have to believe that the vociferous minorities who protest against prayer and saluting the flag in school have far more rights than the majority who believe in God and country, and want these values instilled in our young children.

22. You have to believe in MOB RULE and not RULING THE MOB (The Republican way).

23. You must not listen to Rush Limbaugh or read Matt Drudge.

24 Trade Unions and Trial Lawyers are our strength and power.

25 The Main Stream Media and Hollywood are our propagandists.

26- FEMINISTS and GAYS are the men of our party.

27- The Terri Schiavo case proves we and a two-timing husband have more power than GOD and 2 loving parents.

28 - REMEMBER WHAT OUR UNCLE JOE STALIN SAID: "It doesn't matter who votes that counts, it only matters who counts the votes."

29 - You must promise everyone the Moon and then "moon" them.

30 - We must now refer to our Party as THE BLUE-DRESS DEMOCRATS.

31- We must scam the world about GLOBAL WARMING so that we can finance our Socialistic takeover.

32 WE HAVE TO CUT & RUN FROM IRAQ BECAUSE IF
THE U.S. HELPS THEM WIN - WE LOSE.

33 WE AND THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA MUST NEVER LET THE TRUTH
ABOUT TWA FLIGHT 800 (www.cashill.com) ANDTHE ARKANSAS PRISON TO CANADA BLOOD SCANDAL ( www.factor8movie.com) TO GET OUT TO RUIN THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION.
.

34 LAST BUT NOT LEAST WE ARE THE PARTY FOR THE LOSERS IN
LIFE AND WE (the elitists) CAN ONLY KEEP OUR POWER BY KEEPING THEM
THERE.

35 You have to swear to the : THE DEVIL'S CODE

HIS HEART DOES NOT EXIST
HE SPEAKETH WITH A FORKED TONGUE
HIS STRENGTH UPHOLDS THE WICKED
HIS SWORD SLAYS THE DEFENSELESS
HIS WRATH UNDOES THE INNOCENT
'
BUT NOT TO THE: THE KNIGHT'S CODE

HIS HEART KNOWS VIRTUE
HIS TONGUE SPEAKS ONLY TRUTH
HIS STRENGTH UPHOLDS THE WEAK
HIS SWORD DEFENDS THE HELPLESS
HIS WRATH UNDOES THE WICKED

THIS WAS THE OATH OF A FIGHTER PILOT. Keep forwarding and add more

PS-THE COWBOY AND FIGHTER PILOT IS AMERICA’S VERSION OF OLD EUROPE’S CHIVALRY AND KNIGHTHOOD.

PSS - BOBBY KENNEDY WAS KILLED BY SIRHAN SIRHAN A PALESTINIAN AND POPE JOHN PAUL WAS ATTEMPTED TO BE KILLED BY ALI MEHMET AGCA A TURKISH MUSLIM. THIS STARTED IN 1968. HOW SOON WE FORGET.

PSSS -PASS THIS ON TO 1000 FRIENDS AND/OR 1000 TIMES TO ONE ENEMY!!

OUR SUN, THE GLOBAL WARMING CULPRIT

The sun is past its peak life and is waning as a star in the universe. It is in its autumn in its life cycle, one which gradually loses its gravitational hold on its matter, and grows larger and larger into a red giant, at least ten times its current mass volume. The Sun will gradually but persistently emit more and more of its gases into our solar system until it envelopes Mercury and Venus. More solar radiation from solar flares and emitted gases will encompass the orbital path of Earth and the planets beyond changing these atmospheres forever, until 10 thousand years from now, when it (the Sun) will explode into a gaseous nebula, displacing all elements of life from our celestial reach.

Today, our Earth is experiencing a sliver of these ongoing changes, and there isn't much we as humans can do to change the inevitable warming of our Earth.

Changing the habits of human production and consumption of fossil energy, may decrease some ai pollution but will eventually and only redistribute wealth in and amongst nations.

I can only hope and pray that the US Congress has enough members with the brains to see through this "chicken little" panic. Idiots like David Hill should be treated like fools, not experts.

I suspect the reason they are working to get this done in December is because they have been notified that the NASA satellite data for 2007 shows the coldest year since 1982, and that will surely be announced and promulgated when the final tally is in. I think that it goes without saying that this is a socialist racket and no reasonable person could believe this is being done for the reasons stated. I am honestly sorry that the environmentalists teamed up with the Marxists politically, because while I'm happy to see the latter destroyed, seeing the former go down with them is depressing. But, we reap what we sow.

The fossil record indicates there have been periods when the earth has been far warmer and periods when it has been much colder. We know climate change is natural and has been going on for longer than man has been on the earth. Why would any reasonable person believe that cycles that predate man are caused by man?

These 10 questions are not easy - BUT - The answers are the scientific and provable facts - not the estimates and projections used by the Goracle!

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

The only way humans will be extinct this century or any other century is if liberal utopian social engineers get command of us and make it happen.. human caused global warming would be a god sent if we could change the weather, but we can't so humans are destined to be plagued by cold periods when many poor will freeze and hot periods when when extra farm lands become available and populations will expand some what uncontrolled.

I am setting up my factory to package air in invisible containers (an obviously green endeavor). Where do I sign up to collect my carbon credits from all the evil industries who exceed their government imposed limits?

I am hoping global warming is a fact. I want to farm in Greenland, just like my Viking ancestors did. The family would still be there living the good life if it was not for the Little Ice Age. DARN!

CO2 is an essential trace gas - it constitutes a minute percentage of the atmosphere - there is not enough of it to make a difference - and we cannot make enough to make a difference. Moreover - I have not seen the environmentalists put for the results of true reproducibles scientific experiments (not manipulated studies) that demonstrate CO2's ability to reflect radiation in such a away that is profoundly disproportionate to its composition in the atmosphere!!!

In fact CO@ does exactly the opposite - generate more CO@ - you encourage more plant growth which moderates and tempers the environment (read cooling). Interesting - more plants consume more CO2 - which balances the amount in the atmosphere - a self correcting cycle - fancy that!!!

The sun - which we have no control, the earth's rotational wobble over, and water vapor in the atmosphere have much more to do with the earth's temperature than CO2!!!

The US has now had two years of no hurricanes. The same hurricanes that global terrorists said would increase with warming temperatures. I think I feel global cooling coming on.

You know what? It doesn't matter whether people agree whether climate change is man-made. Here is what does matter: there is not an infinite supply of oil. We fight wars over oil. Using oil for fuel is bad in ways beyond the public-health effects of burning fossil fuels. So #1, let's find a way to replace oil (and coal) with clean, renewable sources of energy. Second - we are extracting natural resources from the earth to make our "stuff" faster than the earth's ability to replenish them. Thus, we are robbing future generations of a way to make a living. And in the process, we are causing pollution and illness. We don't need to save the planet; we need to save the people. People are currently serving as filters for the planet, and ending up with cancer, asthma and many other diseases as a result.

So, if we focus on those two problems - getting away from fossil fuels, and vastly slowing down the removal of natural resources from the earth, we will help moderate climate change, give other nations fewer reasons to kill us, and improve public health. OK, go ahead and argue with that.

If these idiots have their way we will be living back in the 1800's.
If anything, the climate changes are due to the sun and natures normal cycles. Everything natural has reoccuring cycles. Similar changes caused the little ice age centures ago.
THE COMMON MAN WILL SUFFER: NOT, THE ELITE. Don't believe the lies.

Here's an idea: How about an historic vote to approve the changes to the Alternative Minimum Tax structure so that the IRS can process our tax returns this year?? For those unaware, Congress has been sitting on a tax bill which, if not approved in the next couple of weeks, will totally farch tax filings in this country... refunds held up, tax forms out of date, many filers having to file amended returns next summer. They fiddle while Rome burns...What a bunch of morons.

And how about those devasting hurricanes over the last two years that were suppose to wipe out half of our country? Oops.

The IPCC "consensus" only predicts 23 inches of ocean rise over the next hundred years.

Not really a crisis.

There is a really good chance that any Carbon Tax passed today will survive well into the next Ice Age.

It would be interesting to do a little research on organizations like WIF (World Innovation Foundation). It seems WIF is a little like Who's Who in that selected individuals are invited to join the organization so that WIF can list them as supporters, while requiring little or no work on the goals of WIF. The candidate gets to place on the resume that they are a Fellow/Charter member, etc. of an organization that, at least on some level, meets with governments. It seems at least to me they avoid major controversies so that member scientists do not abandon WIF over fear of having grants pulled.

Could I be wrong about this? You betcha. However, the Global Warming Thought Police are out there and are active. There have been several, if not, many news account of GW (Global Warming) organizations that have attacked anyone questioning whether human caused GW exists. If anyone does start pointing out conflicts of interest or contrary evidence, they are denounced as pawns of Big Oil or the like.

Still when you see an organization pass out Fellowships like universities pass out honorary Doctorates for merely giving a speech to a graduating class, it is more likely that I have discovered something odd about WIF. Too bad journalism is not what it was in the 1970s.

"Over the next 20-years the world will begin to see the growing emergence of major indicators that humankind will very likely become extinct in this very century."

I guess the sky is falling, eh, chicken little?

Extinction in 100 years? Alarmism. Actually, if Al Gore wasn't involved in this argument a lot more would probably get done to subsidize the development of alternative cleaner fuels, which we need anyway to take the money out of the hands of middle eastern estremist governments.

Al just makes it a polarizing political debate and as such weakens any positive response that might be a good one.

Dave Robison

Hello Good Gentles All!

"The problem is far greater than the Senate casting an historic vote on a global warming bill this week. Over the next 20-years the world will begin to see the growing emergence of major indicators that humankind will very likely become extinct in this very century. Panic will definitely set in."

Interesting. Dr. Hill, I will be happy to place a bet with you regarding the extinction of the human race by global warming in this or indeed any century to come. I will bet against it and you may bet for it. Please bet the absolutely largest sum of money as you possibly can as I can use all the money I can get. Assuming you accept this offer we can draw up legally binding documents to have our descendents (as I am sure there will be) pay the bet from the proceeds of our respective estates.

Pax,

InFides

P.S. Do feel free to invite any of your collegues into this bet as I will cover all the bets offered for any sums they can afford to loose.

InFides

Man made global warming is the biggest sham history. "Scietists" can't even accurately predict next years hurricane season, let alone what the climate will be like a hundred years from now. When the current warming cycle ends and the inevitable cooling cycle begins this total sham will be exposed. That is why the alarmists grow ever bolder with their bogus dire predictions. They want to hurry up and enact their economy wrecking special intrest money grab schemes before the jig is up.

We are not undergoing global warming. We have been in a cooling cycle for nearly 10 years. The Earth warms and cools naturally - always has and always will. There is not a shred of verifiable scientific evidence that any aspect of human behavior has affected these natural cycles in any way. In fact, the models upon which global warming alarmists base their pronouncements are demonstrably unreliable - when applied to data from several decades in the past, their predictions are uniformly wrong compared to what actually happened in subsequent years.

The real agenda of the global warming alarmists is anti-capitalism, and it is important to our own economy as well of those of developing nations that the global warming myth be exposed and disregarded as the tripe that it is.

Global warming has become a enormous political scam. Poor old Al is going to make millions collaborating with opportunistic investors in promoting this hoax. What troubles me more, when the weather turns around they will take credit for saving earth and then the gullible will empower then to control even more of our lives. Does "1984" come to mind here?

I live in New Jersey and about 12,000 years ago the last surge of the Wisconsinan ice sheets stopped here just south of the Delaware Water Gap. The ice sheet at that point has been estimated to have been 1/2 mile thick. It's long gone now and the nearest ice sheets are over a 1,000 miles to the north. Global warming has been going on for quite some time and our carbon emissions are a drop in the bucket.

That "flurry" of environmental press conferences will match well with the expected snow. I wonder how many of these events are planned outdoors?

It would be interesting to find out what discipline "Dr Hill's" PhD is in. Likely it is not in any scientific field.

A news article that appeared recently that Japan, Italy and Spain face fines of as much as $33 billion for missing Kyoto targets. The USA can breathe a sigh of relief that Al Gore wasn't allowed to steal the 2000 election because surely he would have insisted on pushing the Kyoto treaty through the senate and we would be stuck with similarly huge fines too.

So this Shari chick says we need to adopt laws to cut greenhouse gases by 25 percent by 2020. Let's do some simple math...95% of greenhouse gases are water vapor, the remaining 5% is made up of CO2 (4%) and other gases. Of the 4% made up of CO2, the simple fact is that less than 10% is caused by human activity. So, how do we cut greenhouse gases by 25%??? Seems to me the only way would be to turn vast amounts of our oceans, rviers, lakes, etc. into giant landfills. Do we have enough machines, people, money, and dirt to accomplish this??

Im all for not wasting enregy but for Pete's sake Dr. Hill, lighten up already (and thanks for the entertainment).

As a Floridian I'm amused at the doom and gloom weather guessers. Totally WRONG! two hurricane seasons in a row. Now they're adjusting the definitions of Tropical and Non-Tropical Storms in hope that we'll believe they have some credibility. You have no credibility and your "scientific evidence by consensus" is ridiculous.

I would like to see Big Al Gore take a couple thousand of his friends and wade out into the surf and attempt to change the waves and tides. You can't by any method you wish to try. Man has never controlled the elements. I really would expect Al, being a divinity school dropout, to understand something about truth and error. He's only in it for the money.

Global warming is just another excuse for government intervention and TAXATION! Wake up, its all about money and power for politicians. It lets them tax you BIG TIME say what you can and cannot drive, what kind of home you can own (New Jersey was proposing a penalty/tax on houses above 2000 sqft). People wouldn't stand up for it unless they were fed a lie like you're all going to die unless we do this. Look at the United Nations, they are trying to TAX countries with high CO2 emmissions and rake in billions. Right now they are limited in power by their funding (mostly by US), if they have their own revenue stream they will have massive power. MOST of the so-called 'experts in global warming' are also funded by grant money. Its like taking advice on the impact of oil drilling from an oil lobbyist. Many of these 'experts' are not even climatologists, they are in other fields. The real climatologists (for example the founder of the weather channel) think its idiotic and not evenly remotely possible this is man made.

People are causing global warming? Hardly. One good volcanic eruption trumps our "off-gassing" for many months.

This is all about Al Gore and a handful of libs making a lot of money.

The comments on this page give me hope that not all is lost to the global warming fascists. Thank you to all who possess leveler heads and more logical minds but make sure your representatives know what you think as well.

Global Warming is a political hoax. It will be used to ruin businesses and give governments more control over people's lives. It has no basis in reality. Climate change is natural and cyclical. Man is not causing "Global Warming"!

The "true" believers of man-made global warming remind me of kids who fall for the "sky is falling" trick.

I have an open mind, but I would like a full and complete explanation on why the coming Ice Age prediction was in error.

Both the scientific community and the press find them in the same situation, their credibility is on life support.

AMERICA!!!!! Wake up, America! Your republic like much of the rest of the world is being stolen from you by people desperate to create and sustain the fear they sell. Have we become so dislocated from our ability for reason and discernment that we should fall to something as obvious as the Environmental Movement and those who are responsible its creation and funding...THIS WHOLE BUSINESS IS A LIE disguised as an "inconvenient truth" WHICH IS TO SAY: It is quite a colossal lie paraded about with the cooperation of media that seems to be more about propaganda than reporting and truth.

AGW is a complete HOAX predicated on the global redistribution of wealth.
1) The data in the IPCC is useless. This is a policy statement prepared by politicians. They add enough "science" by "scientists" to make it appear cedible. These "scientists" were paid by these politicians to produce this policy statement. It you don't see an inherant problem with this, don't bother reading any further.
2) The IPCC report had to be "amended" over and over again. The hockey stick graph has been eliminated, owing to the fact that it was discredited about as soon as it came out. In the beginning there was a statement in the IPCC that there was NO evidence that man was impacting climate change. This was removed as it did not fit their agenda. Several scientists left the panel when they saw the inaccuracies and exagerations in the report. At least one scientist sued to have his name removed.
3) There is a petition signed by more than 20,000 scientists that do not agree with the IPCC. There were about 1200 "scientists" with the IPCC. There is NO consensus! If you were to poll scientists "anonomously" the vast majority would not agree with the IPCC. It must be anonomous so they won't lose their funding.
4) The models they used do not take in to consideration such things as solar activity, precipitation and cloud cover. The models themselves are not worthy of any consideration with out those three elements. Think about it, the three elements that OBVIOUSLY influence the temperature the most aren't even addressed.
5) Thus, this report is so fundamentally flawed that any any true (non government funded) scientist would disregard it. This report is based losely on "correlation" only. Correlation does not mean causation! There was just an article published that owing to the fact that there are less pirates there is global warming, same correlation.
6) There is NO scientific proof of AGW. There is, however, proof that the increase in CO2 occurs after the warming. This would make much more sense. As the majority of the CO2 on earth is maintained in the oceans, as they warm they realase more CO2. If the CO2 caused the warming it would trigger an unstoppable (regardless of what man did) realease of CO2 from the oceans in a never ending cycle. As the earth has warmed and cooled repeatadly, we know that this cannot be true.
7) The earth was cooling up until the 70s, right during the midst of historical CO2 production, that should not have happened. The earth has not warmed since 1998, right when China and India have come on-line with massive amounts of CO2, this too, should be impossible. AGW doesn't even pass the most basic "smell test".
8) It's called WEATHER. It gets warmer and cooler, the poles have even been known to switch with each other. There have been ice ages, warm periods, and it will continue to be that way. This is the most inane crap that man has ever contrived!
I agree that we all need to be better stewards of the environment, but this is not the way to do it. I was around in the 70s when the next ice age was coming, as I am a climber I couldn't wait...oh well.

So called “global warming” is not about climate change, but is a political tool with which to further bludgeon individual liberty and prosperity out of existence. It is one of the greatest threats to freedom in the history of the United States, and far too many Americans are apparently oblivious to the fact that we are on a path toward economic ruin and lives micromanaged by the loveless State in the name of the golden calf called the Environment.

If the “global warming” extremists have their way, our children and grandchildren will one day come home to dark, tiny houses or apartments, stiflingly hot in summer and freezing cold in winter; that is, when they can actually get home from work after putting in many extra hours to pay for their environmental taxes and the increased cost of goods and services. They will be told when they can drive and if they can drive, and will be taxed, regulated, and monitored at every turn.

If “global warming” is real and if it is caused by human activity, it can be addressed without reducing the standard of living in America to that of a third-world nation, but only if our leaders respect the freedom bestowed upon the American people by our Creator through the vision of our Founding Fathers. So far, I have heard little from our elected officials that indicates an understanding that freedom defines the difference between living as opposed to merely existing in fear, cowardice, and paralysis.

Not everyone has bought into the hysteria perpetrated by those who bleat the lie that proclaims that freedom has become too dirty, too selfish, too expensive, too unfair, and simply too dangerous to be enjoyed by this and future generations.

Many people think that they are preserving the environment for their children and grandchildren. What they are actually doing is selling them out to a life regulated by extremists at every turn.

This Nation did not achieve its greatness with a mindset of “safety first,” but rather “live free or die.”

The new world order would love nothing more than the imposition of federal restrictions on green house gases. It's the equivalent of tightening the noose just before the hatch door swings open.

Do the taxpayers get a vote on global warming before they rob us blind with this hype?

Global warming? Extinction of the human species? What a pile manure! The Earth cycles through climate changes. Why should anyone believe this lie, this ranting about Global Warming, they cannot even get it right in forcasting the hurricane season! Do conserve and reduce, but stop the Chicken Little attitude about the sky falling!

What’s up with that Ozone Hole thing? It isn’t in the news much anymore – I was thinking the Montreal Protocol from way back in 1989 really kicked a-- on all those ozone depleters. Then out come the scientists and they say “Brother and Sisters! Listen – The Ozone Hole is bigger than ever!”

That’s right! NOAA and NASA said in 2006 the Ozone Hole was bigger and deeper than ever. From a 10/19/2006 press release dated 10/20/2006 and available here - http://www.space.gs/weathernews/19-oct-2006-nasa.html

"From September 21 to 30, the average area of the ozone hole was the largest ever observed, at 10.6 million square miles," said Paul Newman, atmospheric scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center , Greenbelt , Md. If the stratospheric weather conditions had been normal, the ozone hole would be expected to reach a size of about 8.9 to 9.3 million square miles, about the surface area of North America .”

WOW! I thought Paul Newman made a great salad dressing but here he is dressing up global survival. Maybe it’s a different Paul Newman.

Anyway, I guess we’re lucky that Global Warming senario kicked in – otherwise this Ozone Hole thing would have run amoke and gotten as big as the USA , Canada and Mexico put together. Let’s read some more…

“The temperature of the Antarctic stratosphere causes the severity of the ozone hole to vary from year to year. Colder than average temperatures result in larger and deeper ozone holes, while warmer temperatures lead to smaller ones.”

Well, the UN and Al did tell us everything was getting hotter and the ice pack was melting. Hey! Wait a minute! That’s backwards. You mean if the temperature warms up the Ozone Hole gets better but if it gets colder it gets worse?

But that means if we stop global warming then the Ozone Hole gets bigger, right? And then the UV comes streaming in and causes many life forms to die a gut wrenching death, right? I don’t wanna die that way…

And it got colder in 2006.

“The NOAA National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) provided analyses of satellite and balloon stratospheric temperature observations. The temperature readings from NOAA satellites and balloons during late-September 2006 showed the lower stratosphere at the rim of Antarctica was approximately nine degrees Fahrenheit colder than average, increasing the size of this year's ozone hole by 1.2 to 1.5 million square miles.”

Are you kidding me? – In 2006 it was “nine degrees Fahrenheit colder than average”?

Why is it so cold when Global Warming is here?

“The Antarctic stratosphere warms by the return of sunlight at the end of the polar winter and by large-scale weather systems (planetary-scale waves) that form in the troposphere and move upward into the stratosphere. During the 2006 Antarctic winter and spring, these planetary-scale wave systems were relatively weak, causing the stratosphere to be colder than average.”

Oh. So in this case stuff rolls uphill right? Maybe we’re just getting a one year break then it back to global warming, right?

“The recently completed 2006 World Meteorological Organization/United Nations Environment Programme Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion concluded the ozone hole recovery would be masked by annual variability for the near future and the ozone hole would fully recover in approximately 2065.

Annual variability for the near future?

"As a result of the Montreal Protocol and its amendments, the concentrations of ozone-depleting substances in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) peaked around 1995 and are decreasing in both the troposphere and stratosphere. It is estimated these gases reached peak levels in the Antarctica stratosphere in 2001. However, these ozone-depleting substances typically have very long lifetimes in the atmosphere (more than 40 years).

As a result of this slow decline, the ozone hole is estimated to annually very slowly decrease in area by about 0.1 to 0.2 percent for the next five to 10 years. This slow decrease is masked by large year-to-year variations caused by Antarctic stratosphere weather fluctuations.”

Annual variability? Weather Fluctuations?

I thought the UN and Al said it was getting hotter PDQ? And if we don’t act now we’re all gonna die a gut wrenching death!

Everybody agreed! – I read it in the UN report. It was consensus I tell you! CONSENSUS!

All the world scientists agreed its going to get hotter real quick and we’ll all die a gut wrenching death unless we pay heavy taxes and eliminate vehicular traffic except for a few government officials and environmental wizards who get to use big SUVs and high flying jets to speed around the world deliverying the message and checking the Ozone Hole and using thermometers that measure global warming and…and…and…

Are you scared? That is exactly what the global warming conspiracy theorists want from you; fear, and then your cash. Simply put, follow the money. Who stands to profit from this hype?
Al Gore is busy getting his share.
Massive tax increases are what Congress is after to feed their pork barrel spending and what better way than to fleece their own constituents?
Don't be scammed by the global warming hysteria. Too many in the scientific community are currently jumping off the S.S. Global Scam because the data just doesn't fit their model.

30 years ago these same scientists were declaring that there was an impending ice age coming. These Chicken Littles are only interested in public hysteria to justify the Millions of Dollars they suck off of the Government and thus our wallets. These tools cant even predict weather for a 7 day period correctly and they're going to tell us what its going to be in decades and centuries to come? Just take a look at the last two years predictions of Increasing Major Hurricanes in the Gulf. What actually happened? 2006 was light, and this year was the lowest level of Hurricane activity in the Gulf for 40 years!
Anyone that doesnt understand that the Earth has been around for Millions of years and has cycled through warming and cooling periods over those years is a complete idiot.
That is not to say we should not conserve and be good shepherds of our environment, we should!
But enough with the scare tactics for personal and political gain!

All Consensus science. We have heard that now Chia Pets are a cause for Global Warming; www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/12/03/KudzuGas_1203.html

Then it is Divorce that can cause more pollution; http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=3946834&page=1

Best thing for us to do is all kill ourselves to ensure the planet survives. Ever thought that the people predicting the fall of the earth are some of the same people who cannot forecast the weather locally for 3 days.

Please people, time is running out. Can't you see what is happening. If we do not act now it will be too late. So please I beg you to get behind the consensus of scientists because before too long, the opportunity to raise taxes and collect millions of dollars for phony research and even phonier solutions (carbon credits) will be gone for ever. We must act now before the world realizes that it is too late to make any more piles of money on this rediculous issue. The time is now to act (and collect).

So we're going to be done by the turn of the century? Panic, people going crazy. All these big terms to impress us with facts that can't be proven. 25 years ago they said we are goingot have another ice age. Now we're going to melt. I will be dead and gone so please start drilling now so I can have my hot rod car run cheaper. If none of this is reversable I say what the hell. Why are the wackos on the left concerned. Let me enlighten you to something we're all going to die of something so fire up the gas hog start drilling go to a NASCAR race and enjoy your ride. SCREW THE leftist Marxist who are doing nothing but getting over on us. Hey in 1000 years the continents will shift how you gonna stop that. Maybe global warming is causing earth quakes too.

The message from the global warming cult has become pervasive because the main stream media coupled with the liberal USA teachers union is dispensing the kool-aid. Not surprising since most high schoolers think WWII was the USA allied with Germany to fight the Russians and Japan.

Man Made Global Warming is not a myth - it is a blatant LIE.

NO ONE has proven it, in fact the more you research the "evidence" the more feces you find. This undergoes changes in weather tectonic shifting, volcanoes, HURRICANE cycles, on and on and on - all without the help of idiots like Al Gore.

Global Warming???? Ha...Ha...Ha..The ONLY THING that the "Global Warming Theory" proves is that is is EASY to FOOL FOOLS!

I guess the flurry of press conferences will coincide with the "snow flurriess". You can't make this stuff up!

No can I find in the IPCC model, (the ONLY thing that is driving the debate because the recent climate data sure ain't supporting AGW predictions!), the actual physics of water heat transport into the upper atmosphere. I can only suppose that they missed it? Water is not only responsible for 95%, (or 60% depending on who you believe), of the greenhouse effect, it is also our planet's thermostat. It is the reason that the tropics do not get much warmer at all during a period of global warming. The heat of evaporation of the water at the surface is physically transported within the water vapor up above the heavier greenhouse gases where that heat is then released. Therefore, that amount of heat did NOT radiate up through those lower layers, it was physically carried up through them adiabatically and radiates when it condenses at 5 to 40 thousand feet, ('feet' is the international standard unit for altitude measurement thank you).

Passing legislation in regard to climate is ABSURD - even the IPCC itself admits that MUCH of the climate system is too complex and POORLY understood. What part of that do these nitwits do not understand?

Yes, if GW continues, the Greenland ice cap will melt and raise the sea level several meters - over a period of FIVE THOUSAND YEARS! What sane person could be alarmed by that?

BTW, just for fun, Google "Al Gore" + "Maurice Strong" + China

First, carbon dioxide gas is plant food before it is a so-called greenhouse gas.

Second, CO2 increases have historically [based on the latest ice core analysis] FOLLOWED climate warming by approximately 800 years due to the oceans outgassing dissolved CO2, just like a warm bottle of pop.

Third, any increase in temperature will reduce the number of deaths related to temperature, because six times as many people die due to cold weather than due to hot weather.

Fourth, water vapor is the most important GHG, and it is never going to respond to our meager human efforts to regulate or control it.

Carbon dioxide emission controls are useless in attempting to control global CO2, regardless of the remaining IPCC scientists who still ascribe to the politician's biased summary of their factual information.

Good luck trying to coerce Russia and China to impede their development for the good of the planet.

Global warming - another hoax - another decade.

The leading names supporting global warming were all screaming about global COOLING in the 70's
Environmentalists ?
How 'bout Manipulationists !

The sad thing is, they'll pass this legislation. And since the earth has started to cool off, they'll say next year that the bill is working and we should do more....

Oh Good, Another "Blue Ribbon" Goverment Panel is going to once again save us all......I thought this new Congress was going to help us out instead of playing politics? But as Uncle Jed Use to say "Well Doggie thars Money in them thar Global Warming"

Now I'm sure all of Hollywood will be walking to the next award show or car pooling to save the planet, I'm sure our "Leaders"(pardone while I throw up) will not fly on Fact Finding Missions to Hawaii or Italy.

Want to be a millionair in America, don't buy Real Estate, Don't Invest, Become a Congressman on either side of the isle

Could somebody tell me what is supposed to be the correct temperature of the earth? Nobody knows except GOD!
Anybody that seriously believes that we humans alone are responsible for warming up the planet has the intellectual reasoning of a PEANUT!
There is no such thing as human induced global warming and I am certain in about thirty five years we will all talk about global cooling and the ice age just like they did in the 70's.
The whole talk about global warming just shows you why we don't want stupid people in places of power.

When I graduated in environmental science in 1978 the extremists who ruled the discipline were just as much doomsayers as those today with one big difference: They were warning that pollution was causing us to go into a new ice age. They were using selected facts, theories and calculations to prove their point, and the gullible sucked it up. Now the same thing is happening but with the help of the major news media, which have lost their skepticism and credibility. A scientists who holds a politically incorrect point of view nowadays seldom has any input in today's news environment. Reporters and editors who would give the opposition to the man-caused global warming theorists fail to do so for fear of losing the admiration of their peers. So most of the public is left with the impression that there is a consensus that global warming is man-caused. Unless you're willing to do your own research, you won't find many facts to read and precious little actual data but instead will read about calculations, models and warnings that the earth is dying due to man-caused increases in so-called greenhouse gases. Did the major media report it when a scientist recently went through all the data and discovered that global warming ended in 1998? No.

Man-made-carbon dioxide-induced climate catastrophe is a bunch of baloney. The earth only emits so much heat, and carbon dioxide can only absorb at a few select frequencies. Most of the heat emitted by the Earth at those frequencies is likely cmpletely or close to completely absorbed -- a process called saturation. So it doesn't matter if the atmospheric carbon dioxide increases from 0.037% to 0.06% or higher. There will be virtually no effect on atmospheric warming.

"To all Global warming alarmist. Why are icecaps on Mars melting ?"

Because of all of those Martian SUVs!

Whether global warming exists or not, one thing's for sure. Cutting emissions will make it a hell of a lot easier to breathe out there. I live in Philadelphia and there are many days I hate walking outside, with the stagnant fumes of pollution already lingering in the air, probably for years, trash all over the streets, tractor trailers spouting off their exhaust. It's disgusting, and this will HOPEFULLY change that.

what a bunch of bunk!!!! we have had climate change for thousands of years. it all has to do with the suns rays..we had warmer temps and more hurricanes back in the 60's. all this is just one more way to destroy america. the chinese and india arnt buying into it. if you think mfg is bad here now, see what happens if more of this baloney is put upon us.

Dr David Hill
World Innovation Foundation
Bern, Switzerland

So which UN Program to fight "Climate Change" do you receive your paycheck from?

I always find it disturbing that Congress claims to be doing the "will of the people", yet we actually have to put significant effort into stopping them from doing anything because they only seem to take action on implementing things that we DON'T WANT- first it was the illegal alien amnesty, now it's this 'global warming' nonsense. It's amazing the amount of money these people get paid when the best we can hope for is that they will do nothing.

I love reading these posts, makes me realize there are sain people out there! GW is the libs best freind, there is no way to prove it so libs can use it to steal....I mean raise taxes without reason. I see a change in thinking and it is starting to go right. Thank GOD for the internet and a chance to be heard.

Promoting man caused global warming is a no lose proposition -When temps go down they can say "WE saved the planet" when the temps go up they can say "YOU are not doing enough- buy more carbon credits" What a horrible scam

I have to admit: it's shocking and frightening to read a lot of these comments.

It's like people, on some subliminal level, can't cope with the reality of global warming, and so instead they rant and rave about liberals, Al Gore, and a vast, worldwide, left-wing conspiracy.

Here's the truth: scientific delegations from 140 countries--climate experts--gathered recently and issued a unanimous statement: that global warming is "unequivocal," that it's caused primarily by humans burning fossil fuels, and that the results for the planet could be catastrophic.

It's not a liberal plot. It's not fiction. This is real. You can read about it here. (This is a story from the Associated Press.)

http://malaysia.news.yahoo.com/ap/20071118/twl-climate-change-conference-1be00ca.html

Here's another story from Reuters about how global warming, if left unchecked, this century, could wipe out Indonesia--the world's fourth most populous country at 234 million people:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/climate_indonesia_islands_dc;_ylt=At0kz1L8DTIug0_t60Uh.W.s0NUE

What's even more tragic is that the technology to address this problem is just sitting around. It exists today.

What's required is leadership and collective will to harness this technology for the sake of our children, our grandchildren, and God's creation.

This hoax is out of control. I am more concerned about global cooling, as Newsweek was 20 years ago.

This is the leftists' and the internationalists' last great hope to con America and to con the world into their dogma.

For the leftists', this is their religion, as it replaces for them a belief in God.

I have researched all sides of this story and have concluded that there is no such thing as global warming, but patterns of global cooling do indeed exist.

Thanks,
George

This hoax is out of control. I am more concerned about global cooling, as Newsweek was 20 years ago.

This is the leftists' and the internationalists' last great hope to con America and to con the world into their dogma.

For the leftists', this is their religion, as it replaces for them a belief in God.

I have researched all sides of this story and have concluded that there is no such thing as global warming, but patterns of global cooling do indeed exist.

Thanks,
George

I really enjoy the warmer weather. Please vote yes for global warming.

One must remember that Bible prophecy is always right and liberal propaganda is always wrong.

Life on earth will not be wiped out by man-made global warming. It's just another way to confiscate your money in the name of "helping the planet".

Even if you really believe that global warming is as bad as the worst predictions, humanity wouldn't go extinct. Global warming itself poses no threat to humanity, only to civilization as we know it. If civilization crumbled and millions/billions died, the rest of humanity would still survive. The fact that supporters even include such alarmist statements shows that the supporters trump scare tactics over science.

I have never heard a supporter of global warming even mention such things as natural cycles of weather -- apparently the typical global warming supporter thinks that the climate is an unchanging thing where temperatures stay the same year in and year out -- the world never gets warmer or cooler (unless it's humanity's fault). It just COULDN'T be that the planet is getting warmer naturally and on it's own.

As mentioned by someone else, water vapor makes up over 90% of the greenhouse gas on the planet. Carbon Dioxide? Less than 1% of the gas in our atmosphere, even after all the CO2 that humanity has produced.

Now I am worried about CO2's effects on the oceans (acidification), but that has nothing to do with global warming.

I really enjoy the warmer weather. Please vote in favor of global warming.

To see what galaxy Dr. David Hill has landed from, check out the "World Innovation Foundation" website at: http://www.thewif.org.uk

All we need is a couple of health volcanoes going off, which is a regular occurance in nature/history, and we will again have snow in Hew England in June, a year of no summer.

It's truly sad to see the comments that people make regarding climate change.

When people's opinions on matters scientific are informed by Rush Limbaugh and fiction author Michael Cretin I guess it isn't very surprising that they wind up being able only to parrot the talking points of these idiots instead of dispassionately examining the evidence.

You folks who think reality is some grand socialist plot really need to get out of the bomb shelter more often. The Earth is warming. Just because climate change that occurred in the past wasn't cause by humans doesn't mean the current change isn't anthropogenic.

Why is that concept so difficult to fathom? Scepticism is a good point from which to start whenever anyone tells you there a terrible problem, but
a truly intelligent person can be persuaded by evidence even when they were formerly sceptical.

Since the earth is a closed system (i.e. we are not importing carbon from space), all the carbon that is here now was always here. This means that the 'fossil' fuels represent stored carbon that once was in the atmosphere, and burning them ALL would simply restore the atmospheric CO2 to its former level, and life existed on earth at that time. It's a cycle: CO2 is absorbed by living things, then released when those things decompose. The system will always balance out, regardless of man.

A yes vote on this issue will absolutely prove what we already know, that those in Washington are truely as stupid as they appear.

>>> the growing emergence of major indicators that humankind will very likely become extinct in this very century.

The farking hysteria gets worse with every passing day.

This guy probably takes himself seriously.

GLOBAL WARMING HYPOCRISY

Some day people will see what this global warming is - a power play for control.

Just look at the wealthy proponents of this hypothesis of global warming caused by CO2. Most of them travel lavishly, use electricity excessively, breathe (talk) profusely, etc. Some of the biggest proponents of the hypothesis have private jet fleets, mansions, limo fleets etc. They live contrary to their words, i.e. they don't believe it themselves or at best everyone else should do it. (See Clintons, Gore, Ted Turner, or any Celebrity)

That thinking is similar to Osama Bin Ladin. He propogates that Martyr-dom is one of the highest callings for a Muslim and then he tells others to do it. If it is what he says, why isn't he first in line for a suicide killing?

I am appalled watching environmental protests with all of their trash generating, driving to the protest, using of electricity by non-renewable methods, and heaving breathing (creation of CO2). Hypocrisy at its finest.

Scientifically, greenhouses gas hypothesis on a plantary level is very immature and not well studied. Let alone drawing conclusions from a single component of a very complex process.

By current defition, water vapor is by far the number one greenhouse gas. Based on the whole global warming premise, increasing tempertures would increase water vapor content (see relative humidity) in the atmosphere which would increase temperatures, etc, etc. Based on that, we should burn up or live in 100% humidity everywhere.

By the way, has anyone one seen experiments on plants with increase CO2 concentrations? They thrive and generate increasing amounts of oxygen.

What we have is a convenient lie pushed on the masses on a world stage for the purposes of controlling people. (University professors are in that group; by any standard they are rich (based on hourly wage rates) and in positions of power).

There needs to be a big investigation into these fraudsters using climate change fear mongering to defraud the public. Let's find out the identity of the prime movers putting this fraud over, and how they have gone about it.

Thinking people who study history don't buy this political junk. What kind of nutcases want to wreck an economy based on foolishness?

As is well documented and explained in Unstoppable Global Warming every 1500 years by Singer and Avery, there is an approximate 1500 year climate cycle. This cycle has been documented by ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica, sea bed sediments from every ocean, lake bed sediments, tree rings from many locations, peat bogs, stalagtites, stalagmites and recorded history. It has been traced back for about 1 million years.

One of the most interesting and important ideas that are presented in the book comes from the geologic record: the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows warming events because the oceans release CO2 as they warm. So no small amount of the increase in CO2 probably comes from the oceans and we have added to it.

CO2 is fertilizer for plants so if you are really serious about controlling it, plant trees. We don't need a huge
govenment boondogle to plant trees, do we?

Legislation to stop the unstoppable is utter folly and an enormous waste of resources. We would be better served by spending the resources figuring out how to deal with the natural warming period.

Hey folks. This is serious business. These global warming chicken littles are ready to start picking our pockets and tying us down with all sorts of wacko regulations. Don't just sound off in these blogs - write or call your congresspersons ASAP. They can cause all sorts of damage if they don't hear from you!

-Dr. Terry M

As an engineer, and someone with an actual useful education, i would say that the people leaving comments disregarding climate change as a hoax, are really quite retarded or probably back-road montana hill-billies...

But, believe what you may, I will move to higher grounds, invest in alternative energy, and watch as you non-believers make america look less intelligent than you already do...

Worried about your carbon footprint? Go get some *free* carbon offsets: www.freecarbonoffsets.com

No worries here. The Republicans on the committee will save us from this foolishness.

No one finds it odd that a google search of Dr David Hill turns up hundreds of posts, using the exact same sig line and notates him as CEO of WIF... but mysteriously, the CEO that's everywhere on the web doesn't have a single picture on a google image search.

Fascinating, no?

I am seeing higher electric bills, more expensive gas, heating oil, cars, food.

Not to mention a big stock marked down turn.

These are the same hippie freaks who went and lived in comunes in the sixties. Take another tab.

WOW Im impressed How much can one mans inventions alter the way we live. I mean first he invents the internet, then he invents man made global warming. All one needs to do is follow the money trail to see what a scam this is. From "scientific "groups needing funding, to Al Gores Carbon credit buying scam ( seems like a ponzi scheme to me). Come to think of it I wish i would have thought of selling carbon credits, there are enough gullible people out there, I could have been very wealthy. Well Im off to go drive in my Hydro-Carbon Eco vehicle ( that should impress the non educated, or at the very least gullible enviro;s)

Global Warming is the neo-secularists version of the apocalyptic vision. The Senate would do much more good concerning itself with the deteriorating moral climate and the endless waves of corruption spreading out from the former swamplands astride the Potomac.

There's a sucker born every minute. The big question is, how do you make money off of them? That's what the big corporations are working around the clock on, to take advantage of this "green" fad. They have to be cautious, though, and be careful to invest too heavily in something that five years from now people will chuckle over.

Listen all you who seek the truth, you children of light, wake up and turn from your sin & turn to God for the time is near when He will step out of the way and the man of Lawlessness will be revealed. Seek the Lord while you still can & be sure to gather extra oil so your light will not go out.

What you naysayers fail to understand is the the solution to Global Warming is higher taxes. The problem is, taxes are too low and unless they are increased dramatically, Maryland will be flooded! Want to buy some carbon credits?
How about some fees to "emit carbon dioxide or other greenhouses gases above a set limit"?

Does anyone think the NONPROFIT "Pew Center on Global Climate Change " is anti-socialist?

Please follow this link for some research into Dr. David Hill. He is obviously a scam artist.

http://blogs.news.com.au/news/splat/index.php/news/comments/who_is_david_hill_and_why_is_he_saying_all_these_terrible_things_about_wiki/

Global warming is one more way for governments (especially the US government) to control and clamp down on its citizens.

Al Gore is brilliant. Look at the climate data, see that we are at the end of the warm up cycle. Cry GOBAL WARMING, institute taxes, government programs, get very very very rich. Climate goes into cooling cycle, claim you saved the world, go down in history as the person who invented the internet and saved the planet. Wait until end of cooling cycle, cry GLOBAL COOLING, ICE AGE COMING etc....

This weather trend has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war and this could come about before the year 2000!!!!Lowell Ponte--"The Cooling" 1976. And you freaking people actually believe "global warming?" I believe in atmospheric scientists, not a stupid political hack trying to get his name in the paper.

Global warming can't get here soon enough, if for any reason than to kill off the pseudo intellectuals that constantly foist zany ideas on the "followers" of this planet. Planet Earth should shake us off like a bunch of fleas. Nice experiment time for something else...maybe the dinosaurs wasn't such a bad idea. The arrogance of humans!

UH OH!!! We're DOOOOMED!

Just like the "ice age" wiped out most of the planet the 70s and the "hole in the ozone layer" that killed off most of the planet in the 80s!

The biggest question that needs to be asked about this latest fad is...Not what can do to stop it but rather, who's profiting from this???...again.

"There's a sucker born every minute"
~David Hannum
So our benevolent and wise government will rise to save us from ourselves and tax my backyard BBQ while those FEMA trailers bleach in the ever worsening sun. We get what we deserve.

"Chicken Little" should be required reading for all youth due to its relationship to the hysteria promoted by those who would have the government do something about that which it has no real control.

Global Warming is the biggest scam in the history of the world.

Last century the temps went up 1 degree and the oceans rose 1 ft. Did we go extinct? No. Did the world plunge into chaos? No.

We adapted then and will adapt in the future. The Global Warmers are a religious cult who want to run the world. They hate people with their warmed over Nature worship.

Winter is coming where I live. Oh no, the temp is gonna plunge by 50-60 degrees. How will I possibly adapt?

Ok ok the world flat. Flip the world with the sunny side down problem solved.

You know, maybe it would be a good idea if humans went extinct? Then all these morons who think that people trying to avert global disaster have "an agenda!"? will disapear into oblivian. What agenda? Clean air? Less dependence on Arabs for oil? Some just give me one good agenda someone would have to try and stop global warming? Just one! You morons deserve to die! You are too stupid to perpetuate as a species. We are the only, so called "intelligent " species on the planet that pollutes it's own water and air ans soil? How intelligent is that? I just feel sorry for the children who will never have the chance to enjoy being alive because of ignorant people like the ones on this web page! See you in hell!

Dr David Hill is more reminisct of Professor Harold Hill!

I see socialists. Just when we though Communism was dead.

I love how people use huge words to try sound brilliant and scare people because of there titles (M.Ed, PH.D., and so on). When we break things down enough the true answer to stop global warming and climate is limit population. What did we all think would happen if we continued to have children and a population increase at an astronomical rate. The Earth is getting warmer because of more people and lets face it we are going through a cycle of change. When this change is over the science nut jobs and politicians will say "Hey we did it we saved ourselves", then 30 or 40 years after that our grandchildren will hear the same mess we did.........Another political agenda to strike fear in people so that they can control them.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.“

H.L. Mencken

Cooling, warming, warming, cooling,
Who do these guys think they're fooling?
First we're told that we should worry,
And to buy clothes warm and furry.
But the tea leaves, read anew,
Tell us what we NOW must do!
(Or, correctly, what we must,
STOP 'lest Earth turn into dust).
For example, gasoline,
from our lifestyle, we must wean.
Yet the Commies get to keep,
burning coal, and not a peep,
from the world we fought to save,
and to whom so much we gave.

As Director of the International Association to Prevent Continental Drift (IAPCD), we must do more to prevent squirrels from digging in the ground. Their incessant digging is destablizing the continental plates, causing them to drift and this, in turn, causes things to fall off the shelf. Countries should be taxed on the number of squirrels they have and made to pay for this damage. Once we bring continental drift under control, we can take on easier problems, like global warming (or is global cooling? I can never remember which it is today that the scientists tell us to look out for.)

350,000,000 cubic miles of earth water divided by 7 BILLION persons gives each person a 50 square mile lake 5 feet deep, or a 25 square mile lake 10 feet deep.

Dr. David Hill - Professor of drug abuse, Sweden.

Doctor, I'm sorry, but top scientists from top universities completely discredit what you're saying. Too bad you never could get into a prestigious school due to your inferior intellect. I bet that "Dr." is one of those funny "honorary titles" they give to people who weren't capable of obtaining a real one.

Big Biosphere domes. We need to build big biosphere domes to survive. If we do not start building biosphere domes right now, humanity is doomed. We have only 27.2349 years left to build all the domes or we die.

This is not an issue of global warming truth or fiction. This is an issue about a do-nothing Cniogress wasting its voting sessions on pseudo-issues. Here's an idea: How about an historic vote to approve the changes to the Alternative Minimum Tax structure so that the IRS can process our tax returns this year?? For those unaware, Congress has been sitting on a tax bill which, if not approved in the next couple of weeks, will totally farch tax filings in this country... refunds held up, tax forms out of date, many filers having to file amended returns next summer. They fiddle while Rome burns...What a bunch of morons.

Will somebody please explain to me how the transfer of money from my pocket to the pockets of others is going to affect global temperatures?

This bogus crock of bull butter is NOTHING more than a leftist attempt at wealth redistribution, plain and simple.

Anybody who thinks otherwise has drank of the progressive koolaid and is therefore too stupid to live.

Hey Bernardo.
Here is a 3rd grade science project you must have been late for. Fill a large glass or jar or bucket with ice cubes and then fill it to the top with warm water so the ice will melt quickly and then tell me how melting ice caps has anything to do with ocean levels.
Don't be a Dupe!

This is a bummer since I'm hanging up incandescent Christmas lights today and I'm killing everybody. Sorry.

Check out this site about the bogus global warming crisis: www.gopland.com

350,000,000 cubic miles of earth water divided by 7 BILLION persons gives each person a 50 square mile lake 5 feet deep, or a 25 square mile lake 10 feet deep.

Sorry, I thought we were all going to die from Y2K. That's what the media said and they'd never print anything that wasn't true.

As is well documented and explained in Unstoppable Global Warming every 1500 years by Singer and Avery, there is an approximate 1500 year climate cycle. This cycle has been documented by ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica, sea bed sediments from every ocean, lake bed sediments, tree rings from many locations, peat bogs, stalagtites, stalagmites and recorded history. It has been traced back for about 1 million years.

One of the most interesting and important ideas that are presented in the book comes from the geologic record: the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows warming events because the oceans release CO2 as they warm. So no small amount of the increase in CO2 probably comes from the oceans and we have added to it.

CO2 is fertilizer for plants so if you are really serious about controlling it, plant trees. We don't need a huge
govenment boondogle to plant trees, do we?

Legislation to stop the unstoppable is utter folly and an enormous waste of resources. We would be better served by spending the resources figuring out how to deal with the natural warming period.

This entire debate is silly. Everyone knows the single largest thread to humankind is Manbearpig.

From Dr Hill via his site : "What can be done therefore? In this respect, the world's scientific inventors and innovators are our only source of pure and applied enlightenment. Overall, they are the only ones who intrinsically have the necessary creative tools to deliver a far better future world order"

Read this twice...It's more terrifying than any so called "warming".

It is interesting to note that between 12/3/07 at 1:00 PM and 12/4/07 at 12:14 PM only two comments are supportive of the idea that mankind is the cause of global warming. Where is the popular support for the U.S. Senate to now consider a Global Warming Bill??? As so well stated by so many others, this is just another effort by 'Big Brother' to scam us!

Global Warming is the new "junk" science. The ability to predict the weather beyond a day or so is difficult! One hundred years in the future is nonsense! This earth of ours is in a state of constant change. To believe that man is the source of warming is fine, proving that is nonexistant. This is a theory of "talk" not of evidence. For Mr. Gore to be the authority on this subject is one good reason to question the conclusions. It's political and each of us will pay the price of this "fear monger"!!
Oh...did I memtion the SUN has been more active in the last few years.....it has....is their any correlation? Let's see some real science in this discussion.....

LOL!!! All of these posts are so entertaining! But because you people are such Man-Made-Global-Warming heretics, you will DEFINATELY NOT be invited to the latest NYC, Boston, and Washington cocktail parties!

Global warming is a "the sky is falling" scam driven by the left for the sole purpose of stealing more tax payer dollars.

Climate is cyclical. A few decades from now, Al Gore is going to be wringing his hands about "global cooling" and once again, the fix will be more tax payer dollars.

The greatest of global warming gases is water vapor. The newest Honda fuel cell vehicle emits only water vapor.

The second greatest global warming gas is methane. Cow farts (6 billion people farting out about a quart a day probably doesn't help either), rotting biological material in swamps, rainforests and dumps may be huge culprits. Perhaps we should all be vegan (broccoli makes me fart more), NOT!

The third of the great global warming gases is CO2. Man contributes about 3.5% of the annual contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere. The oceans outgas more CO2 to the atmosphere than man could ever hope to.

It is clear from all this that we should drive bigger gasoline-fired SUVs, eat more tasty critters and dry up the oceans. I can do the first two but I'll have to leave it to the all-knowing government boneheads how to do the last one.

Don't worry, be hoppy!

Global warming is a government fraud being used to seize more control over its citizens. The left cannot win at the ballot box in the arena of ideas so they have come up with this big scam to limit freedoms and extort money from large corporations whom they hate as promoting free enterprise. Wake up people, theses so called protectors of the plant, types, are nothing but former communist!

We've got to start evolving right now people! Scrunch your eyes closed tight and grit your teeth and start trying to grow a third arm or some other useful mutation. It's the only way or else we're all extinct.

The World Innovation Foundation? Ok, then I am Dr. Heinrich von Kielbasa of the Earthlings for the Earth Foundation. The consensus of my members is that manmade global warming is a crock.

Let's remember what so-called man-man global warming is all about........making money for Al Gores carbon offsett rackets! This liberal fad, like so many others (save the whales, free Tibet, the I-pod, go green) will fade in time. Let's just hope that the sensible people in this country are able to stop this madness before they do permanent damage to our country, and then move on to their next fad.

Human beings will never control the sun.

The sun controls our weather.

Human beings will never control the weather.

Looks to me as if Dr. Hill is the "second coming" of Paul Ehrlich, whose apocalyptic "The Population Bomb" predicted massive overpopulation and the consequences of same (famine, wars over resources) by the year 2000. Ehrlich's work now lies fully discredited - and Algore and his "eco-Marxists" will soon join him on the ash heap.

Bunk!

For years--We have heard this--ACT NOW, ACT NOW,

The cycles of warming and cooling have been going on since Cavemen painted pictures of themselves driving thier SUVs to the Airport during the last ice-age fighting off Sabertooths along the way.

When the Titanic sank--it hit an ICEBERG that was not supposed to be there that time of year.

The warmest year ever recorded in the USA was in the 1930s.

Weathermen can't forecast more than a few days out and usually get that wrong.

Now for the last decade we have had this load of BS pushed down our throats but the warning is always--it will be too late ten years from now--WELL we are two years over their first estimates--and they are still saying we have only TEN YEARS!!!

'A weatherman is the only job you can be wrong at 365 days a year and still keep your job!"

I don't want to dismiss these people outright, but every year that goes by I become more suspect of their motives and their "FACTS." and they seem to get more shrill in their cries.

The weather remains oblivious to both of our views..

This is the most brilliant political ploy in the history of mankind. The political left has found a way to blame the political right for the weather...no matter what the weather does or doesn't do. And the education system has raised at least two generations of idiots who will buy whatever the TV and Internet tells them. I am impressed. Of course I would rather die on a burned out cinder in space than live in the world envisioned by the environmentalist. I personally test out all my small internal combustion engines and put pesticides on my lawn on Earth Day.

Oh God...We're All Gonna Die!!

Wake up people and smell the Ozone. The most frustrating part of all this for me is seeing the reaction of our politicians. Either the too ignorant, in which case they have no business leading the country, or they're deliberately deceitful for political gain, in which case they should be hoisted on their greenhouse gas petard.

Knowledge and reason change like the season...a jester's promenade.

I remember as a kid in the 1970's when the theory going around was that the world was going to be frozen or that by 2000 there would not be enough food to feed all the people. I don't remember, did that happen?

Global Warming, Al Gore and environmentalism are distractions. As the mass media creates climate illusions, Big Brother clamps down by opening our mail, suspending habeas corpus, stealing private lands, banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon, rigging elections, conducting warrantless wiretaps and starting wars based on blatant lies. Soon, the sinking of an Aircraft Carrier(by Mossad) will occur and the US will 'retaliate' against Iran. Which AIPAC-lobbying country benefits from that? How much will the environment matter after a Nuke attack on Iran? Not much. Stop Iraq, Prevent Iran then work on the environment.

The concern that I have about global warming is that, in 10 years, when the leftist global warming alarmists have been proven wrong and are casting about for a new way to attempt to control every aspect of each individual's life, will we let them get away with this? Will Al Gore and people of his ilk be held to account for the damage they have done, for the panic they have caused to global economies and lives around the world?

We are letting them get away with the DDT scare right now. Yeah, are you aware that DDT has finally been legalized for use as the extremely effective malaria-carrying mosquito killer that it is? Did you know that before Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring in 1962 and began a campaign to get rid of DDT on false premises that malaria had basically been wiped out in the world by this miraculous pesticide??

Unfortunately for HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE in 1972 the United States banned DDT, which was effectively a global ban. Literally hundreds of millions of people, men women and children have been sickened and died due to malaria AND IT IS ABSOLUTELY THE FAULT OF THE FALSE SCIENTISTS LIKE RACHEL CARSON AND AL GORE THAT CAUSED IT!

DDT is legal again as of last year. It never caused any thinning of egg shells as was Rachel Carson's wild claim. The California Condor was simply in a low ebb in its population when she wrote her anti-human alarmist book. It is an horrible tragedy that so many men, women and children had to die for this article of faith by the left!

How on earth are we letting these people get away with this?? And are we going to let Al Gore get away with this current hoax??

No wonder there's widespread hysteria when the likes of David Hill and his kooky group are spreading their silly crap in the media. We've now had no increase in average global temps for almost ten years, Greenland and the Arctic were warmer in the 20s and 30s than they are now, the ice on the continent of Antarctica is gaining in thickness, and it turns out the warmest year on record in the U.S. was in 1934, not 1998, according to new data from NASA. The evidence that we are in any kind of "crisis" is so underwhelming, it's laughable. Yet the global warming zombies keep beating the drums to stunt our economy and submit to the UN because of an hypothesis they can't prove.

The oceans may rise---brace yourselves---a total of ONE foot in the next 100 years! And there's nothing we humans can do to stop it. AAAAUUUUGH!!!!

Don't let Junk Science Socialists steal your freedom!

Ok, so I do think alternative energy (solar, geothermal, wind, hydro) is not only becoming more and more essential to cut our dependence on foreign oil, but also makes sense from an economic standpoint. I personally do not buy into the Global Warming hysteria and certainly dont want my taxes increased as an emotional response to an unproven theory. Yes, there are many scientists who agree with the warming, but there are many who disagree at the same time. So why are we not allowed to even question the theory? That is the main concern for me, that we dont really have a voice in where our country's policies are headed due to politicians who dont really have the best interests of "We the People" any longer. They only listen to the "Progressives" and not to the majority of the people who are discounted as "ignorant" or "uninformed" because they dont live in NYC or DC. What has happened to common sense? Lets take back our country on the issues of Global Warming and Illegal Immigration, both of which are not being solved in any logical manner!

Regardless of cause and effect of global warming, there will be those who prey and feast on fear.

God it's depressing to see so many ignorant facists out there. You all have the right to your opinion, but good lord, I've never seen so many people embrace ignorance so adamantly!

Forget the Y2K comparision. Y2K was a real problem with people that understood what caused it and how to fix it. Tens of thousands of hours were spent in doing specific things that would fix it and voila! no problem. Had the work not been done, there would have been massive problems. Global Warming on the other hand is a deliberate misreading of data to justify massive spending on a scale never before seen to accomplish nothing.

I'm still waiting for global cooling and the impending "Ice Age" from Newsweeks front page article in 1974. What a bunch of loons. Global warming my butt. The sky's falling too. You bunch of liberal idiots, really think that we're the cause of a 1% increase in temperature. Hey let me take off my shirt, it's getting really hot here in Texas. You morons and the liberal "scientists" who are making this crap up are really trying to tax humankind to we can fund some world account to turn us into socialist. No one ever blames...let's see...maybe the SUN for us getting warmer! What about the inner core of the earth which already is a time bomb ready to explode. The Senate is run by leftist Demorats who again, want to use this scare tactic to control tax us even more. Kiss our butts you bunch of lying, alarmist, leftist socialist/communist. Now get out of the way so we can start drilling for oil.

Dr David Hill - World Innovation Foundation, since I'm sure your a "believer" in Evolution, its inevitable that man goes the way of the dinosaur. So, what are you afraid of, its going to happen. There is more to believe in, in life, other than the arrogance to think we are responsible for Global Warming. Its a hoax and a power grab. Deep down you know it, you're just reaching for some kind of significance. Please find another use for your time. Thank you and please keep your hands out of my wallet.

"Panic will set in"
Only if you're lucky Dr. Hill.
How much in grant money will a full-on panic bring in Dr. Hill?

It's as easy as following the money folks. The guys making the most noise are poised to make the most money off of the global warming scare.

This global warming thing is total nonsense. Has anyone thought that the sun’s temperature may be rising, which in turn will make the planet’s temperature rise. Or how about this, what if the World’s orbit is not completely circular and more elliptical (egg shaped) in some years. Wouldn’t that affect the World’s temperature as well? If the whether man does not have accurate forecasting models for your local forecast past 10 days how can someone forecast the whether for 20 years in the future? This posting is just some food for thought. It is coming from someone who does not have his doctorate, but does use his brain.

Al Gore announced the other day we need something bigger than the Moon Shot, the Manhattan Project and the Marshall Plan combined and then Upsized to a Global scale. In other words, please pile up TRILLIONS of dollars and put me in charge of it. Thank you. NO.

The first comment:
"...growing emergence of major indicators that humankind will very likely become extinct in this very century."

What a crock. The globaloney alarmists are reaching the stage where they all will spontaneously combust, emitting many tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Of course, CO2 is NOT a pollutant. And very few of the alarmists apparently understand what the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy is - anyway in geologic history the CO2 increase comes AFTER the temperature increase!

Don't swallow the globaloney.

what's wrong with giving a crap about the environment, regardless of global warming truth or lies?

There is a downside to the information revolution. The facts of the history of the earth and its changes are presented in Dr. Peter Ward's books on Astrobiology. I suggest that Al Gore read just one of these books and then dare to spew his venom. It would also help if our celebrity experts on every subject would read these books, although it would severely tax their intellectual capacity.

A lot of excellent comments here, with 99.9% of them declaiming the Global Warming Scam. I hope all of you contact your Congressmen to tell them of your ire with these dire predictions, and their predeliction to impose further financial impediments to our future success!

"Over the next 20-years the world will begin to see the growing emergence of major indicators that humankind will very likely become extinct in this very century." -Dr David Hill

Dr. Hill, I am 'floored' by such spectacularly irresponsible fear-mongering. Shame on you.

Get out a globe. The Earth's surface is 75% water.

If you took ALL the ice on the planet and melted it, you would NOT notice any change in the seas. The oceans are too vast.

ALSO remember that ice SHRINKS when it melts. So water takes up less volume than ice. So as ice floating in the oceans melts, it takes up LESS space -- not more.

But of course no ice is going to melt. The temperatures in the polar regions are below freezing even in Summer, and will continue to be below freezing even if global temperatures rise by several degrees. Ice does not melt at temperatures below freezing.

WARNING: Remember that flat maps exagerate the size of the polar regions because of the difficulty of converting a spherical shape to a flat piece of paper.

Are these guys Liberman, et al. on drugs? Don't they realize that China is the chief producer of greenhouse gasses, primarily because their first priority is to defeat the US economically. Having a clean environment is maybe a fifth or tenth priority for China. Meanwhile, Liberman, et al. will continue to create regulations and impose fines on the very industry that pays his salary, benefits and retirement by excessively high taxes.

Don't fall for the global warming HOAX.

The Sun controls our global climate & you can't turn off the Sun...

The earth's climate has never been static in its entire history & now is no different.

We humans will adapt to whatever climate change the Sun throws at us just like we have for the last 100,000 years.

The idea that we have an immediate threat to coastal lands is flat out wrong. The is absolutely no evident ot support such alarmist claims.

The biggest Global Warming conclave is to be held in Bali quite soon. Al Gore will show up along with all of the other people who support the "catastrophy" of warming. I find it quite interesting that these people who fear anthropogenic global warming, will be gathering in a very warm place, under the warm Bali sun, on the warm beaches, to discuss their greatest fear: the great distruction of the planet due to warmer temperatures. Also how are they all going to get there, by row boat?

If you are so sure there is suchthing as man created global warming, then I can help reduce it drastically. Called a non poluting non petroleum engine.
It is for sale for $200 million after taxes. Developed in early 70's, this has been on the shelf since it was initially developed.

How does Owl Gore and the other Global Warming idiots explain global warming before the industrial age....Duh....The sun has cycles and the earth wobbles between 22 - 24.6 degrees. We are presently at 23.3 and tilting back torwards 22 degrees...meaning the mid-latitudes are actually receiving less of the sun's rays thus cooling not warming!

Mr Hill,
Count me among the skeptical. Thats a slippery slope argument if I have ever seen one.

Hmm I wonder who has to pay for this ORE-STEM complex? Your web site puts it near $25 Billion....

Well it sounds REALLY Scary!!! We better all clamor to pay for it OR ELSE!!! (insert evil laugh).

Seriously you got some data to back that up? The WIF's web site is short on details!

"The fact is, science doesn't understand why these naturalclimate variations occur, and cannot reliably distinguish between natural and possible human influences on global temperatures." --Roy Spencer PhD

Since there are reports of evidence of warming on pretty much every other planet in this solar system, the presence of humans on the third planet is simply a confounder until proven otherwise. This is not a particularly difficult argument to understand.

Global warming environnment carbon neutral inconvinient truth al gore Kyoto Maryland Ben Card..d.fdslkjfdlskfjlsdkjflsdkfjofie]

BOOOOOOOOOOORING!

Man CANNOT influence "global warming"...he can only ADAPT to it!!!

And who says warming is "bad"? Increased agricultural production world-wide will more likely lead to unparalleled PROSPERITY!!!

And the "CO2" myth has already been exposed as a SCAM. CO2 is NOT A POLUTANT...it is an ESSENTIAL gas which is necessary for all plant life!!! Attempts to regulate it are merely attempts to expand government and raise taxes...and they will have no effect on the earth's temperature whatsoever.

If you need to be afraid of something, fear "global cooling": it is in our future due to the NATURAL solar cycles...and it presents many more challenges to adaptation. So when this happens, are we going to increase production of SUV's???? This is just as silly as trying to reduce the earth's temperature via auto production.

The main "greenhouse gas", accounting for more than 95% of the total "greenhouse effect", is WATER VAPOR (that is, CLOUDS)!!! And man has NO CONTROL over them!

"I've never seen so many people embrace ignorance so adamantly!"

Just wait until the Party of Global Warming (the Democrats) converge in Denver for their nominating convention in August 2008 . . . .

And misguided, power-mongers such as Gov. O'Malley will lead that freedom-attack pack.

Even if one subscribes to the anthropomorphic "global warming" canard, how will any token action taken in MD meaningfully reduce GHGs enough to affect MD's coastline?

As I read through the vast majority of these comments, I could almost immediately find flaws in every piece of logic, and I am only 17. It would take far too much time to rebut every conclusion which has been stated above, but my following explanation does a fair job covering it all.

Essentially: its all about balance and equilibrium When I was 15, I studied water and nutrient cycles in AP Environmental Science. The Carbon Cycle is the most relevant. (for those who are not familiar with the cycle, please use this as a reference http://www.globe.gov/fsl/eventsimages/CCdiagram-Print.jpg)

Anyways, there is nothing wrong with carbon dioxide, in moderation. All of earth's processes are reliant on a delicate balance. By this logic, there is nothing wrong with burning a tree or even 100 trees. Although this emits large amounts of carbon into the air, what is being released is carbon which the tree took from the air to grow in the first place.
The difference with fossil fuels is that they are not intended to be an active part of the carbon cycle. New carbon is being introduced into circulation whenever coal, natural gas, or oil is pumped up and burned. Since we started digging up coal and pumping oil and natural gas, we have been adding new carbon to the carbon cycle which destroys the delicate balance.

It is an undeniable fact that in the past 100 years, carbon which had not been an active part of the cycle for millions of years has been added into the cycle. I accept a certain amount of debate over how this extra carbon in the carbon cycle effects the climate, but given that carbon dioxide (atmospheric carbon) is a heat trapping gas, it makes sense that more heat is remaining in our atmosphere rather than being radiated into space.

To sum up: remember, new carbon is being added to the carbon cycle and in its gaseous atmospheric form, it traps heat. I hope this makes sense.

Global warming is real whether you're ignorant or not, whether you hate Democrats or not.
These comments show that reason has been kicked to the curb, with hate and ignorance winning the day. The only environmental hysteria is coming from the right.
To all the nay-sayers, the ignorant and the fearful, fuck you.

You know, I read this article and roll my eyes in disgust at what an ignorant nation we have become. Then I read all the responses from so many people almost universally panning the stupidity of MMGW and I feel so much better. Thank goodness we are not ALL morons after all.

How old is the Earth? You're going to tell me that the minute amount of time that man has occupied the Earth, well lets even just say from the Industrial Period, and we are going to cause that amount of damage. I don't buy it. Why is it that whenever this topic comes up it's the industries and "Groups" who capitolize off the fines and costs of "A good first step". How about informing the people that building green would allow them to stay off the "grid" and save hundreds of thousands of dollars for the average person. Or maybe give huge insentives $$ to the people who chose to "Go Green". I know that if I wanted to I could have my own energy produced from nature, recliam and filter my own water naturally, heat my own water from the glorious Sun, and save a ton of money doing it. How about that for a "FIRST STEP" I pay, in the summer, about $300 a month for electricity in Florida, and that would be chump change for some families I know. Some people have to have a second job just to pay for the cost of power and other utilities. It seems like all you "groups" and industries are jumping on the "global warming" bandwagon in order to make an even bigger profit than you are now. Also, by the looks of the other comments, if there is a clear and present danger you'd better find another way to communicate to the people or nothing is going to get done. Instead of rewarding cleaner industries and companies, how about rewarding cleaner PEOPLE, you fools.

Thank you

People of America, if we do NOT stop this global warming nonsense now, these socialist pig dogs are going to ruin our economy, which is their exact aim. They have to be stopped and you all need to let your politicians know as well. I am WARNING each and every one of you that the price to be paid for this is going to cost Americans in higher taxes, and higher costs for the goods we all buy. Again this is a WARNING. For those of you who simply do NOT get it, please do NOT vote anymore. Thanks!!!

Gee...Eric The Red loved a little global warming. Remember when Greenland was really green...who caused this...humans and their camp fires...get a grip you bunch of lib chicken littles .

I happen to be an Engineer also and like to think I have a useful education.
I find it very odd that Al Bores SCIFI movie and the UN study dove tailed quite nicely and very conveniently. All at the same time the media and the select scientific community find consensus. Argument over and all that disagree should be burned at the stake as non-believers. It is funny when I read that because the AP or some news organization trumpets the end of the world, so many sheeple are ready to follow without one wit of investigation. You notice that the new buzzword is Climate Change not Global Warming? Look at the hysterical Rants of the Climate Change fanatics. My favorite was Earth Worms are a major cause of green house gases. Frankly, anyone that pushes the CO2 pollution angle, ask them how photosynthesis works.

In the 40's we had the great works we built dams, dams created electricity, electricity created demand for jobs to build electric goods, then we built highways, then we built the internet, all of these activities spured economic activity, now global warming will require a rebuild of all this to justify the false economy and while we are at it it's levy a carbon tax to make people conform!

It took all of a simple Google search to find "Dr David Hill" and understand the guy is only looking out for his own self interest, no different than Gore and his mastery of fiction. This guy is a fraud. A social communis who, if under his guise, would partake in the same practices that of China regarding population control, fornication laws, etc.

Dr. Hill, the man who writes THE MOST alarmist, sky-is-falling garbage I've personally ever read, is a member of the World Innovation Foundation... An organization lobbying for a several HUNDRED BILLION dollar project to scheme up some way to get the world to stop reproducing and control global population.

Look it up...

How pathetically shameful.

global warming is a lie perpetrated by the elite politicos desirous of absolute power and willing to stoop using, any stratagem to achive their ends.

In the 1960s the Chicken Little crowd was convinced that mankind would consume all natural resources before the turn of the new millennia. I wonder if Paul Urlich ate breakfast this morning?

In the 1970’s the “hot” topic was the coming global ice age. I guess things have heated up since then.

The 1980’s saw a new batch of doomsday predictions, but the one touted the most was world starvation due to acid rain wiping out crops. This false prediction left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.

In the 1990’s the diagnosis by many a diseased mind was that cancer would rise like the temperature. What would be the cause? Enter evil mankind and the electromagnetic fields produced by power lines so he/she could watch football.

Of course, we should not forget the supposed crash of the world’s economies as a result of the clock ticking down to the year 2000. Many a computer “scientists” put their reputations on the line for this one.

The turn of the new millennium has simply brought us a new crop of the naysayers. Like a used car salesmen in a cheap suit, they are now peddling the doctrine that man-made catastrophic global warming will end civilization as we know it. (Shoot, no more football.)

The popular media continues to create stories that have not a shred of reputable evidence. That the temperature is rising is a fact. But is it anthropogenic? Nada! Instead of trying to change something we have no control over, we should be discussing adaptation. But lo and behold, this would not give radical greens an opportunity to control the most hated country in their sights.

Jerry Johnson, MA, M. Phil. Phd.

It took all of a simple Google search to find "Dr David Hill" and understand the guy is only looking out for his own self interest, no different than Gore and his mastery of fiction. This guy is a fraud. A social communist who, if under his guise, would partake in the same practices of that of China and Mao regarding population control, fornication laws, etc.

Dr. Hill, the man who writes THE MOST alarmist, sky-is-falling garbage I've personally ever read, is a member of the World Innovation Foundation... An organization lobbying for a several HUNDRED BILLION dollar project to scheme up some way to get the world to stop reproducing and control global population.

Look it up...

How pathetically shameful.

"God it's depressing to see so many ignorant facists out there. You all have the right to your opinion, but good lord, I've never seen so many people embrace ignorance so adamantly!"

For the record this "igonorant facist" has worked in the atmospheric sciences for over 20 years. I have personally taked thousands of surface weather observations, hundreds of ocean thermal observations, analysed more weather charts than I can remember and written more forecasts (both short and long range) than Al Gore has ever read!

You people who predict human extinction are idiots. Get a grip.

God it's depressing to see so many ignorant socialists out there. You all have the right to your opinion, but good lord, I've never seen so many people embrace enslavement so adamantly!

Stop the humans they are causing the polar ice caps on Mars to melt ! Per NASA . What flakes we humans are to believe we control every thing !

Does anyone travel? Been to Europe or China... Smell the air there... or whatever the heck you are inhaling... When the 3rd world gets their act together, then maybe there will be a need for us to...

This is not a republican or democrat issue it's a globalist issue.It;s another lie to get us to belive we need more control over us because we are so out of control. The fact of the matter is the government is only interested in forcing corporate America's agenda down the thoats of the American people and will do whatever it takes to make us submit.WAKE UP AMERICA! They have Europe nearly sewn up with the E.U. next is the N.A.U. then America and our constitution will be gone forever along with the greatest society ever built by man.

2007 = the COOLEST year since 1983

Hey there, you astute global warming deniers! Look at the great company you're keeping! Right now your administration is seeking out support from China and India so it won't be completely isolated at the climate convention now being convened in Bali! I wonder why Allstate and Safeco pulled out of Florida COMPLETELY? Maybe they know something you don't???? They woke up in 2005. The difference: they had money to lose. You don't - yet. When anyone living along the water in Florida, Maryland, Delaware, and Louisiana can no longer get insurance AT ANY PRICE maybe that will get your attention. When confronted with overwhelming scientific fact, it seems that most of us Americans just clutch our guns closer to our beer-bellies and turn on Rush. Good thinking. Just let natural selection take care of the rest.

Dr. Hill is an idiot! Global warming is not about climate but about government control and another source of taxes.

We should learn from the Martians. It's all those SUVs on Mars that re responsible for the shrinking polar ice cap.

Follow the money stupid. Who is getting rich over the global warming hype? Can I say Al Gore. 20 years from now when the hype has run it course, you idiots will be kicking yourself over how much money was wasted trying to save the planet. Al Gore will be smiling and counting his millions.

I agree with Mr. Gore and the Democrats. This is a crissis amust fix it now so my grandchildren will have a clean world to live in. Way to go Mr. Gore !

Hey "Wow", don't worry, we'll all very likely be dead by the end of this century, so cheer up!

It gives me hope to see there are some sane people out there who recognize bad science when they see it.

What I find MOST frustrating is a DEBATE about something that is sold as scientific fact. If it was a scientific fact, we wouldn't be debating it. Nobody is debating that gravity exists, because we can prove it. Prove manmade global warming and now you've got something...until then, drop it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
kcuhC

As you read the proposals to "cut pollutants" and reduce "greenhouse gases", please remember this:
1-carbon dioxide (CO2) is only a "pollutant" if you buy into the "greenhouse gas" theory.
2-CO2 is not even close to being the largest "greenhouse gas" - that honor is reserved for water vapor!
3-only about 1/4 of the CO2 comes from man-made activities - the rest comes from natural causes (like breathing!)

There are many good reasons to pursue alternative energy sources, but anthropogenic global warming due to the greenhouse gas theory is not one of them!

Are all these comments supposed to be sarcastic?

Dear Dear Doctor Hill. What in the world makes you think that, just because you have bogus credentials from some George Soros-backed organization of pseudo-intellectual totalitarian weenies, we're gonna swallow your man-made global warming drivel. Just because you have Europe in thrall doesn't mean you'll get the majority of independent thinking Americans to crawl into the ovens with them. You'll have to actually use REAL science and LOGICAL defenses to bolster your opinion before we bow down and kiss your sceptre. Imagine you're sitting in your back yard and it's 60 degrees outside. Suddenly the temperature rises and it's...oh my God!!..61 degrees!!! We've already got facts and figures to show there are advantages to the poor and disadvantages to NOT having cold winters. The cyclical nature of the present warming trend has had a tremendous positive effect on the survival people of the Earth by giving us milder Falls and more temperate Winters. Where is that figured into your disaster pronouncements? It's never a factor. Neither are Clouds, Prcipitation , or the predeliction for Socialists and Utopians to try to stampede the people into granting them plenipotentiary powers under pretext of "SAVING" them from themselves. In the words of another famous American, "NUTS!!". We will not surrender!

Science is facts. Just as houses are made of stones, so is science made of facts; but a pile of stones is not a house and a collection of facts is not necessarily science. - Henri Poincare

The global warming theory is a collection of facts, INCONVENIENTLY and artificially assembled as a power platform, but is certainly not science.

Oh my God. This is one fantastic load of tripe top to bottom. The only thing missing is either (you pick) the Raliens or the Scientologists taking over the smoldering remains of planet earth. So sad that apparently anyone can get a PhD these days...

For all you global warming fools out there and the 17 year old whom believes he is a genius after being alive for a short period of time, I have a proposal. Why don't you send me $100 per carbon credit and I will plant a tree in your name in New Jersey. Please send cash only to:

Jim Jones
1348 Perkion Street,
Denhurst, NJ 23775

Thanx for your support!

"Every American, every citizen of the world, needs to hear the other side of the global warming story."
- Michael S. Coffman, Ph.D.

Is there an agenda that motivates supporters of catastrophic man-made global warming? Are the leaders and advocates really a benevolent confederation of concerned scientists and citizens who simply desire to protect the environment and care for the poor? Or are they being used by others who have a political goal in mind?

In the eye-opening documentary, Global Warming or Global Governance, you'll not only hear from leading scientists and climatologists who refute the current crop of alarmists cries; but also congressmen, economists, newscasters and sociologists who believe that something more sinister is involved. What is their objective? They want the United States to give up her sovereignty and her rights surrendering them to the socialistic mandates of the United Nations.

A global problem, so the Kyoto protocol proclaims, requires a global solution. This new non-elected governing body would place global institutions, which are not accountable to the American people, in control of even the smallest aspect of the U.S. and World economies; controlling how much fuel is sent to a region and doling out citations for violators. Every American, every citizen of the world, needs to hear the other side of the global warming story.

In this eye-opening DVD, you'll discover how a non-elected and non-accountable governing body is gaining control of the US economy by scaring the public with bogus claims about global warming. Plus, you'll hear startling evidence from scientists that debunks Al Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.

NEW DVD: Global Warming or Global Governance?

DVD Running Time: 81 Minutes

http://www.panicwatch.org/

It's all there.

For goodness sakes! You Yankees will believe anything!

I have looked, read, and researched trying to find solid scientific evidence for anthropomorphic global warming, and it just isn't there. In fact, the factual evidence points towards the world being in a downward temperature cycle again.

Don't feed me the "consensus" argument as consensus has nothing to do with science. Consensus without factual evidence and reproducable methodology is religion. There was "consensus" once that the world was flat, and that the sun and stars revolved around the earth.

Any thinking adult who can't see this whole "global warming" mythology as a back-door attempt to revive socialism and facism (i.e. government control of private property) needs to get a clue.

I am truly impressed by the number of comments here dissing the global alarmists. And, by the fact that so many people get it. I've felt like I was such a minority for so long. It's great to see so many critical thinkers out there. Now we just have to become louder about it.

The climate has changed uncountable times over the 4 billion plus years on Planet Earth. From tropics in the Artic Circle to Glaciers in NJ. For 99.999 percent of these changes MAN WASN"T ON THE PLANET! Global Warming is an excuse to redistribute wealth from the people who work fro it to the POLITICIANS. Get out your guns if you don't want to get screwed from behind while they pick your pockets.

Test your GW knowledge:


Take the Global Warming Test! (10 questions) at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/GlobWarmTest/start.html

The United Nations released a report in November 2006 linking animal agriculture to environmental damage. The report, Livestock's Long Shadow concludes that the livestock sector (primarily cows, chickens, and pigs) emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to our most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. It is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases - responsible for 18% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalents. By comparison, all transportation emits 13.5% of the CO2. It produces 65% of human-related nitrous oxide (which has 296 times the global warming potential of CO2) and 37% of all human-induced methane (which is 23 times as warming as CO2).

Though you all might find that interesting.

Do the proposed greenhouse gas reductions include water vapor?

All this worry about global warming is the least of the country's problems. If the Islama--terrorists light off a nuke in the US, then emphasis will then shift from the ruse of global warming.
Let's keep our priorities in order people.

The predictions of global warming are all the result of atmospheric 'Modeling' and are not supported by the data of what is Actualy happening.

'Global warming' and the efforts to stop it (an absurd notion) has nothing whatever to do with the climat, it's about control... and the beginnnings of a world goverment. Get loud and do it now, your freedom is at stake.

Todd Christian says "1-carbon dioxide (CO2) is only a "pollutant" if you buy into the "greenhouse gas" theory."

Let me flesh that out a little bit.

What do plants eat? Carbon. How do they get carbon? They take in carbon dioxide, absorb the carbon...and then emit two oxygen molecules.

Its very possible that for the past 100 years, and particularly the last 60, we have been doing the earth a great benefit by digging unavailable plant food out from the crust of the earth and making it available. Many studies show that there is a great increase in both flora and fauna on the earth's surface.

This makes even more sense when you realize that the primary fertilizer now used in farming is crude oil based.

Bad science... as a prelude to more taxes and control on "We The People". What caused the global warming that ended the previous ice ages ??? No humans, no SUV's and no AlGore to save the planet...yet the glaciers melted....

Oh boy, this is going to cost us all a great deal of money only to find out all the wanna be scientists were wrong.

I'm the one responsible for the planets warming. Yes, that's right, it's me, the Sun. You know, that giant ball of nuclear fusion sitting 8 light minutes away from you, the same one that's bright enough that I can burn your eyes out of your head? So I've got enough gas to fry Jupiter to a crisp, sue me.

I've been busy cranking out the solar heat for the past several billion years (But I feel much younger, thanks), and to be perfectly honest, your rising temperature is pitiful at best. I bombard the earth with more energy in one day that humanity produces in a year, and yet I'm constantly overlooked as the cause for your problems, even though some of your scientists study me and find that my surface activity has an effect on your temperature.

Don't worry, I'm starting to enter a quiet stage, so feel free to lay out on the beaches and pool decks. I'll still toast you, but at least the planet will be a little more bearable in the process. Feel free to either worship me or curse me, I really don't mind. Just know that I control the thermostat in this section of the galaxy, and be thankful that you're not Mercury or Neptune.

Brrrr it's a getting cold in Canada! Coldest it's been in over a decade. Two years now of no hurricanes. Why is this an issue? The only time I will drink the kool aid served by global warming profiteer Al Gore is when China and India put their name on the line. I love how you global warmer supporters are heavy on doom and gloom. Were you there in the late 1970s when the scare tactic crowd was telling America get ready for a deadly freeze? Ring a bell?

Dear Dr David Hill,

Your "consensus of the World Innovation Foundatio...3,500 Scientists" Is, mutch like yourself a fraud and I challenge you to provide a single peir reviewed study that supports your claims.

Below is a petition that has been signed by over 19,000 American scientists.

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth

Put-up or shut-up prof. hill.

agree with Mr. Gore and the Democrats. This is a crissis amust fix it now so my grandchildren will have a clean world to live in. Way to go Mr. Gore !
This is laughable and pathetic, instant climate change reversal? Another graduate from the video game culture of the instant gratification society. When a wind turbine farm is allowed to be built off Teddy K's beach house and transmission lines are built from a Solar Energy plant to supply the SOCAL energy grid, then I may listen to the Enviro Wack Jobs. Till then, I am guarding my wallet.

The problem is far greater
Humankind will very likely become extinct
Panic will definitely set in
Immense ramifications
Sheer unparalleled devastation that is on the horizon
No hiding place
The terrible truth of what is on the horizon
Literally destroy many parts of human existence
Nuclear disasters
Food crop failures
High famine
Deaths throughout the world
Water depletion
Financial collapse
Oil disruption
Terrorism
Irrational wars
Disintegration of total energy supply
Overdue pandemic
Terrifying future ordeal
We are literally running out of time
It will be too late
Human existence is predestined not to survive

Dr David Hill
World Innovation Foundation
Bern, Switzerland

__________________________

Ahhh.. The cool, objective, logical mond of gen-u-whine scientist.

But I'm confused; are you talking about the potential effects of Global Warming (tm) or the effect of the "solutions" offered by the best and brightest "climotologists?

Or what will happen if Sen. Clinton becomes President?

Why would all of the World's Academies of Sciences and all other major scientific groups agree on this issue and yet most of the commenters in this group seem to be so sure of themselves?

I suspect they are thinking with their political views instead of dispassioned reason.(perhaps they are simply organized to do this)

If humankind is to successfully meet the challenge of climate change, we must recognize how our own political dogmas color our ability to see the truth of a situation.

The Science of Climate Change is growing and changing, but there is a broad consensus among the scientific community that it is dangerous and real.

But we will not able to solve the issue as long as it viewed as politics, such as the above comments convey.

The solution should be education, but I suspect the turning point will be something more dramatic.

I do understand the reasons why skeptics cling to their position. Climate Change will represent a death nail for unlimited economic growth through carbon fuels.

But a post carbon economy can be just as free, and perhaps even more capable of providing economic growth than the present system.

What we don't want is a REGULATED carbon economy.

That is why the libertarians and the far right must productively join the climate change dialogue now, and stop acting as if the issue is a hoax.

The world is not flat.

Even if it looks flat to you.

Time for taxes to go up and the cost living to sky rocket. Thanks liberals; always thinking about the poor.

WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE "WORLD INNOVATION FOUNDATION"

http://aaronsloman.blogspot.com/2007/05/world-innovation-foundation.html

Wow. What a surprise *rolleyes*

What makes liberals and tree huggers so arrogant that they think this exact temperature at this exact time is the optimum temperature for the earth. Did anyone think to check the temperature of the northern US say, 2000 years ago. If I am not mistaken most of north America was covered in ice. Prior to Ice we had heat and marsh lands in the north. I don't think the dinosaurs caused global warming. they believe that a meteor crashed into the earth millions of years ago and caused a cooling period. This cooling caused the dinosaurs extension. mother earth and our sun took its time to warm the earth back to its original temperature. we then had a warm period back in the 800 - 1300, grapes were growing in England and they were better than those growing in the south of France. They say that oil was made by the decomposition of material over millions of years. Why is it that we have a major oil field in Alaska where its frozen almost 9 months out of the year. Why also is there a vast oil field in the desert of Iraq. What decomposed there? Maybe it was cooler there with more water than today. In the 70's we were told that we were moving to an ice age. why doesn't anyone talk about that? How can anyone predict the weather 1 year or 10 years from now if they can't get it correct in 3 days from now. Did you know that there are more trees in the us today then there were in the 1700's. Talk about a carbon footprint. Why don't we worry about something more important than the weather? I am sorry if S. Florida goes under water. We have lots of land in Iowa they can move to and it should be just as warm.

This blog helped confirm my sanity and disabused me, a resident of Indiana, of the idea that most Marylanders (who apparently are happy to elect and reelect liberals like Sen. Ben Cardin) are a bunch of liberal sheep who will fall for anything. It is very heartening to see that the MMGW sheep are a distinct minority on this blog and that so many people see through the hype. One would never know this by reading or watching the "news" in MSM. I guess that is why MSM is being left high and dry.

Joe Cascarelli, Westcliffe CO wtote:
"The only question that still remains unanswered for me is, “How did such a large portion of the American public become so gullible?”

The answer is that global warming, has become the ultimate 'personal brand' for the intellectually lazy, who want to be seen as intelligent, serious, caring and nurturing, etc., (without actually having to do a worthwhile thing). The sad part is that there are numerous real problems, such as starvation, disease which could benefit from all this wasted concern - not to mention, money.

The best system we have for determining the truth is science. Here is what scientists tell us:

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

I know many people who think they know more about climate change than scientists do. They don't.

do any of you retards know how to read, write, or understand scientifically reviewed material?? No...you just want to be fat and fearless living in your ugly, suburban homes. You are all absurd.

message to so-called climate skeptics: skeptic is defined as "a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual." the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence points to the fact that global warming is real. you are not being SKEPTICAL by denying it. YOU are in fact being manipulated by the few remaining interests that want you to believe global warming is not real. a true skeptic would look at the facts and come to the conclusion backed by reality, not have a preformulated opinion on global warming and use any "evidence" no matter how flimsy to back it up.
look at it this way: what do a bunch of hippy environmentalists have to gain from making up global warming? the answer is nothing. what do they corporations have to gain from denying its existence? lots and lots of money. maybe its your turn to "follow the money trail." furthermore, dont tell me that bullshit about al gore making climate change up to get rich. that makes no sense and has no backing in reality. while you're at it, you might stop believing that 911 was planned by jews and
that its impossible to go to the moon. welcome to the real world.

but don't let me stop you from denying reality. as an american you have the right to believe what you want and i would die to protect your right to look like an idiot. but remember you'll still look like an idot

Once you've been posted on Drudge, you're guaranteed teeming hordes of right-wing loons. It's a pity you lot don't have your own planet to destroy, while leaving those of us who want to actually live responsibly to ourselves.

PLEASE TAKE AWAY MY FREEDOMS TO PROTECT ME FROM GLOBAL WARMING!!!!! TAKE THEM TAKE THEM TAKE THEM!!!!!

It's the sun, stupid.

I am a huge fan of Global Warming. I get cold sometimes and I think it would really be nice if it was warmer.

We have to save the polar ice caps on mars! Look what we've done to the solar system! Hybernate everyone.. Quickly!... Hybernate!... oh and give all your hard earned money to those who know better than you how to fix all this! We have to cork all the volcanos!. Oh.. and all the cows too, and the termites! ( I know.. that's a lot of small corks!) - Follow the money and power... Leave us alone all you marcists! HEAL THYSELF! Keep your hands off my money and your communism out of our country! We've seen what you do with power and money.

We have to save the polar ice caps on mars! Look what we've done to the solar system! Hybernate everyone.. Quickly!... Hybernate!... oh and give all your hard earned money to those who know better than you how to fix all this! We have to cork all the volcanos!. Oh.. and all the cows too, and termites! ( I know.. that's a lot of small corks!) - Follow the money and power... Leave us alone all you marcists! HEAL THYSELF! Keep your hands off my money and your communism out of our country! We've seen what you do with power and money...

After 30+ years of energy engineering, a score of nukes, and two score of fossil plants, I am certain that if these suicidal proposals are implemented, our electric bills will sky rocket. Yet, if they are implemented, the Maryland tide level will remain unchanged. Carbon is the backbone of the industrial revolution. Our native coal is about 90+% carbon. Maryland can go the way of Zimbabwe, where campfires have replaced fluorescent lights.
Our real choices are nuclear power and coal, or cease to exist as an industrial nation.

As a member of the Hill clan, I'm embarrassed that "Dr." Hill was even able to spout his psychobabble about the climate in the first place.

However, be that as it may, I only have one thing to say: Earths' age is 6 billion years; reliable recorded weather data: last 300 years..... Not near enough data to extrapolate even 5 seconds of predictable weather patterns, much less the next hundred years.

I live about 15 miles from the water, does this mean that I have a chance of having waterfront property with global warming? Then bring it on!

DrudgeReport.com reports that there will be snow during this historic vote, trying to show irony. What he points out, albeit inadvertently, is how much snow is missing. DC, mid December, should have had several snowfalls this year. 20 years ago, there would have been a few inches on the ground. What happened to it, and why doesn't the Potomac freeze anymore?

DrudgeReport.com reports that there will be snow during this historic vote, trying to show irony. What he points out, albeit inadvertently, is how much snow is missing. DC, mid December, should have had several snowfalls this year. 20 years ago, there would have been a few inches on the ground. What happened to it, and why doesn't the Potomac freeze anymore?

But what David "Benny" Hill says is true - it's happened before:

In 60,000 BC Og tried to tell the Neanderthals that they had to reduce the sizes of their campfires, otherwise they'd cause all the glaciers to melt and they'd all go extinct.

The Neanderthals wouldn't listen to Og, and so that is why all the glaciers melted and the Neanderthals became extinct.

Let us not make the same mistake as the Neanderthals! Lead us to salvation, David Hill! Take all our money - we don't deserve it! Do it for the CHILDREN!

Why do so many refuse to listen to scientists who say that Global Warming isn't a concern. PseudoScientists ignore reasonable scholars!

Those who believe that the laws of thermodynamics are like Florida and New Jersey election laws can believe in man caused global warming.
Those who know better just shake their heads at them.

"The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling"

Chicken Little !

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
(Get your wallets out and start counting out the $$ to pay those people doing the "good" science.

We are all doooooommed!

Give me a break!

"The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling !"

Chicken Little

I guess the only way to stop it is through a global tax LOL

Fear. Fear. Fear. Fear. Global Cooling! Fear. Fear. Fear. Fear. Killer bees from Africa! Fear. Fear. Fear. Y2K bug! Fear. Fear. Fear. Global warming! Fear. Fear. Fear. Give alarmist bureaucrats more tax dollars! Make scary things go away! Fear. Fear. Fear.

Dear "WOW" :

I have the right to my opinion, and neither you nor your fellow marxists have the right to my paycheck. If you really want to take my hard earned cash and hand it over to a 3rd world dictator, come and get it. Oops, I shouldn't have said that because you and your demoncrat thugs get turned on by the idea of confiscating wealth.

Wow said:
"God it's depressing to see so many ignorant facists out there. You all have the right to your opinion, but good lord, I've never seen so many people embrace ignorance so adamantly!"

Many GW "sceptics" believed Wow was referring to us sceptics (how can that be? It is the GW advocates who stand for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, with severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. Who is it who tries to stifle any questioning of GW dogma by simply declaring the "debate is over"? Is it really that easy?).

Maybe Wow was referring to us skeptics as the "ignorant" "fascists", but I think the shoe better fits the GW believers.

Gosh, gotta love those Senators really wasting their time on the tax payer's dime. Oh, yes, let's discuss global warming and in 5 years when a new, trendy, environmental apocalypse appears, there will be mass pandemonium about that too! Don't you all just love how you vote in these weenies, and out comes meaningless, socially-driven, fake issue votes like this one? Yet, they don't seem to have the time to tackle the AMT, the federal deficit, REAL illegal immigration reform, or the Iraq War funding.

I would like to ask the people who support "global warming" as a real, perilous problem, a few questions. One, how much do you REALLY expect any American citizen to give up stuff like heat, electricity, cars, and still maintain a reasonable standard of living that's not third world? Two, how much have YOU given up for the cause of global warming? Please, with all your scientific knowledge (let's leave Mr. Hill out of it because he's no scientist), identify what causes global warming and how to fix it. If you quote the UN report or Al Gore or Al Gore's movie instead of actually doing research then, well, you're just a chump like the rest of the global warming followers.

Another question: what the hell happened to Maryland? How far away from the Beltway do you have to be to get a clue? Are there any sane people in this state? Judging by the likes of Senator Cardin, I think not.

PLEASE READ THIS- ALL WHO KNOW THE LIGHT NEED TO SEEK IT WHILE THERE IS STILL TIME AND THE COUNT IS TAKEN & THE COURTYARD MEASURED. REMEMBER THE OUTER COURT WILL BE TURNED OVER TO THE NATIONS, ANYONE WITH EARS TO HEAR SHOULD LISTEN & UNDERSTAND. YOU CHILDREN OF LIGHT WHAT DO YOU SAY? STUART

Why don't we pour all this Global warming money into ENDING HUMAN SUFFERING that's happening now, instead of chasing our tails with what's going to happen in 50 years.

Hell, they can't predict weather 30 days from now, much less 30 years

Another hoax perpetrated by the corrupt media. As part of a Communication degree I wonder how many of those buffoons actually took a science course.

i make my living as a pilot. that means when i'm on the ground i'm looking up and vice versa. seeing the earth from altitude gives one a perspective like no other. as a child in school i distinctly remember my geography lessons re how the earth was formed and how it will continue to evolve long after we're gone. we can continue to run willy-nilly over the alleged "dying" of the earth, or, we can remember that we're an intelligent, adaptive species who won't succumb to the fear-mongering being perpetrated upon us by those whose motives are questionable and suspect .

Why are we wasting Senate time voting on a hoax? This just a repeat of evolution. Darwin before he died openly denied the claim of evolution, yet athiestic scientist still continue to try and prove something that just cannot be proven since evolution is false. Global warming is the same way. The "scientist" who dreamed up global warming came out openly years ago proclaiming its falseness and stateing it was a hoax. The director of the weather channel has even stated that global warming is a hoax. Many scientist also have come out with scientific proof show global warming as a hoax. Again why are our elected senators wasting our tax dollars and thier time on a unrealistic dream?

MD can't get enough of Gore's kool-aid.

I AM a scientist and I teach Environmental Science to boot. My students learn to recognize the BS in Algore's anthropogenic global warming "arguments." We explore the politics involved in his pathogenic science. I am encouraged by the ability of my students to see through the faulty and at times disingenuous arguments of the Gore crowd.

I agree with those who have said that in 5 years or so this will be recognized at one of the greatest scams in history. George Bush embracing this BS? - just another example of a sucker being born every minute.

We musts think of the children peeple. What world will thay inheret!!!!!!

Folks, the only way to deal with this correctly, is to contact your federal representative and senators. This 'global warming" crap is just that...CRAP! The ONLY message the IDIOTS in WDC understand, is that they will risk NOT BEING RE-ELECTED when their terms end. Fortunately for them, their constituency has a short memory span and will forget by election time.

I guess the real message is to bend over and kiss your collective wallets goodbye because the "government" knows best how to deal with this problem--taxes...more taxes. Regulation...more regulation.

global warming was created by scientific hucksters to keep their research going ... so they wouldn't be out of a job.

Too small a space to discuss actual climatological research. Enough to say "global warming" has been 0.4 deg.C since satellite imagery became available in 1979. That's it. Well within natural historic variability. Yes, that's right "global warming" is a populus term and not a scientific issue. The money that the pro-global warming advocates would spend on useless restrictions to economic output could be better spent promoting growth in the third world and here at home. That, in the long run, will do far more to alieviate forest destruction, etc., which pro-global warming advocates use to raise fears. The research is abundant that there is no crisis... only a political charade.

Hey, I posted a comment earlier today, but for some reason my pedigree apparently wasn't adequate enough to merit being posted. No matter, after reading the comments of those too timid to remain free, I think that it is inevitable that we all curl up and exist rather than live in a dark and joyless world, devoid of freedom and common sense. The most dangerous scenario of all is living among people so cowardly that they repudiate their very liberty to tyrants whispering "danger." I don't give a damn whether you post this or not, because my core beliefs don't depend upon anyone else's approval or disapproval. Sincerely, Mike Glaser, Cincinnati, OH

Have the leaders of our country, lost their collective mind? How can one even think of passing legislation,enacting new policy and moving us one step closer to the "carbon trading scheme", based on the word of Al Gore. This "panic to react", to the end of the world should scare the crap out of any educated person (fyi: Al Gore has no degree based in the sciences). Al and his pals must laugh every night, about how easy it was to get so many people to beleive his story of doom and gloom, when the current and true data, contradictes so much of his new religion's bedrock. Al is truly the Elmer Gantry of pseudo-science.

Giant Clam Attacks Jimmy Carter and Al Gore...End of Story

America should be embarassed that their hard earned tax money is going to a bunch idiots like this current group of liberal senators to sponsor bullshit like this! Hence the reason I haven't voted for a dem for any office since the early 90's. If you people are stupid enough to keep electing these bozos, then you are obviously too stupid to make intelligent decisions on behalf of our country. Do the rest of the country a favor and get lost on election day.

This post is motivated by "Dr. Hill" whose thesis is we will all be "extinct" within 30 years.

First question, what are you a doctor of? I am a Ph.D. in economics with Masters in Statistics and Geographic Information Systems. Admittedly, my primary are of expertise is not climate change. I am a professional forecaster. My forecast models drive the demand planning of over 400,000 bank ATM's, Branches, and vaults around the world. I've looked into the so-called "science" of this movement and now increasingly "mystical" movement for many years now.

Second, there is no hard evidence of manmade global warming. None. Zero. Nada. Zip.
Depending upon what data one chooses to use (it is all "interpolated" since accurate weather measurements were not possible before about 150 years ago. Hence, all data used must me essentially "forecasted" backwards in time, then climate change researchers use said data to forecast again forward attempting to "control" for the counterfactual -- what would be the case had humans never experienced modernity, industrialization, civilization, etc. -- within an interrupted time-series design.
For the stats innumerate readers, the kicker here is in choosing what data to use. If you choose data created at or near its upper confidence limit (ucl), then man-made global warming looks more plausible. In contrast of you choose data near the lower confidence limit (lcl) then man-made global warming is a falsified theory in serious need of revision. Near the middle of the UCL and the LCL the result is simply inconclusive.

Now if I can put my economist’s hat on for just a few lines. There are many negative things which are plaguing humanity that we can as humans do something about. We can teach people how to read, improve health care, vaccinate poor children, fight for human rights, promote individual entrepreneurial behavior, etc. Nothing could be more irrational than to bankrupt ourselves over something that very well may not even be a marginal worry; that is a worry of something we have significant human control over.

Dr. Mark Frost
Southern Methodist University
Dallas, TX

Anyone notice they have moved away from the term "global warming" and are now moving toward "global climate change"...

Anyone want to guess why they have done this?

I'll give you a hint: If this place starts to cool, their cute little story falls apart.

The most prolific editor on the climate articles of Wikipedia is William Connolley of RealClimate, working on behalf of the PR firm Environmental Media Services, with Political ties to Al Gore. What a surprise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:RealClimate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Media_Services

Wikipedia provides this article:

"Environmental Media Services (EMS) is a Washington, D.C. based nonprofit organization that is "dedicated to expanding media coverage of critical environmental and public health issues"[1]. EMS was founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gore's 2000 Presidental campaign, and former head of the Environmental Defense Fund during the 1970s.

Their primary activities include holding forums that bring scientists knowledgeable in current environmental issues together with journalists, providing web hosting and support for environmental issues sites like RealClimate[2], and providing recommendations to journalists trying to locate experts knowledgeable on environmental topics. They also issue press releases related to environmental issues and provide an aggregration service that disseminates recent news on environmental topics.

EMS is closely allied with Fenton Communications[3][4], "the largest public interest communications firm in the [United States]"[5], which specializes in providing public relations for nonprofit organizations dealing with public policy issues. The Washington branch of Fenton shares the same address as EMS."

I think we can all read between the lines. Google this line to see what motivates Al Gore:

Occidental Petroleum "Al Gore Jr." "Al Gore Sr."

I'm glad to see all the sane people commenting on this article. It is obvious to any intellectually honest person that "environmentalism" is just the current home of radical socialists and communists. It's simple. Tie up natural resources over "environmental concerns". Starve the markets of raw materials, energy, etc. Forces us all into collectivism (or communism to you less learned folks out there).

I am still trying to get my bank account, credit cards, computer, ect... all straightened out from the Y2K issues. Now I have to figure out global warming?

"why doesn't the Potomac freeze anymore?"

Too many big government bureaucrats emitting too much C02?

"DC, mid December, should have had several snowfalls this year. 20 years ago, there would have been a few inches on the ground."

FACT: "Washington DC's normal winter snowfall is 17 inches, but just north and west of the city, the normal increases to 22 inches. This includes the Baltimore area. It is typical for areas to the north and west of DC to see 150% of that snowfall."

Note however, that during the winter of 1995-96, DC had its SECOND "snowiest" winter on record at a whopping 46 inches.

DC snowfall apparently isn't a very reliable indicator of anthropomorphic global warming.

You all sound like a bunch of laypeople trying to tell scientists about science. Oh wait... that's what you are.

I happen to hold a MA in climatology and a PhD in chemistry (as well as a bachelors in American political science, I might add). Let me tell you, if you don't believe in global warming, then you really oughtn't believe in the internal combustion engine or the next triple-bypass you are due to have. The brightest minds on the subject, ACROSS THE WORLD have juggled this issue for close to 50 years, debating it intensely and scrutinizing the science of the studies that support the theory insufferably. Idiots; laypeople with no knowledge or training in the field, who got C's on their general science in high school then never picked up another science textbook, who have accrued a cursory vocabulary ad hoc in order to weigh in on a strictly scientific debate, frequently like to point to ridiculous anecdotal evidence to support their claims.

Where is your data to the contrary? Where are your computer models? Do you have evidence in strong journals to support your opinion? Where is your scientific rigor? What are your acutal criticisms of the science being done? You trust scientists so much that you spend more money of pharmaceuticals than even arms (which are also made by scientists and engineers), and yet you don't believe what is essentially scientific consesus; as much as is possible in a MASSIVE community (think 95%)? Hey, leave the science to the scientists. When we tell you something hard to swallow, deal and make appropriate policy. Oh! Thats exactly what is happening.

Perhaps it really is time we clean the Senate of the old silly headed trash and hire some new boys who think twice before giving OUR money to some idiots that have been set up to be the G.W. Gods. Remember the UN's Food for oil?

In the 70's I was in hIgh school and scared to death by the predictions of my "freezing" future....for me once-shame on you---fool me twice.....SHAME ON ME!!!!!!

My gosh! There really are intelligent people out there who see through this monumental hoax that human activity causes global warming. I was beginning to give up hope. Keep fighting, brothers and sisters!

What if he is right.

I'm looking at a Repogole globe of the Earth from the 60's. There is clearly a Northwest passage and a place called Amundsen gulf.
Amundsen successfully navigated this in 1906. Big problems for the "Arctic is melting" crowd. The Arctic ice floats and displaces its own weight. We aren't smarter than a 6th grader

We are all going to die in this century from Global Warming.... Whatcha smokin' chickin little? We are all going to die from skin cancer due to the depletion of the Ozone also.

It's amusing when simple people try to use complex systems that they don't understand to justify petty personal agendas.

WHY is everyone assuming the pseudo science called "global warming" even exists?

If Al Gore is involved, it's only for the money.

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, if you check NOAA and NASA's accuracy, both thermocouple and microwave thermography, you'll see instantly that the ACCURACY or HYSTERISIS is not small enough to be used to measure a 1 degree F difference! The claimed warming is LESS THAN the accuracy of the instrument!

SOMEBODY -- please help these poor individuals with some high school chemistry or other science courses they obviously failed!

Mike Hunt
Engineering Consultant since 1979

I am not sure how I stand on this issue, I see valid arguments from both sides, though I don't know about the implied allegations of money swindling in these blogs... the loot doesn't actually go into politicians hands... this isn't Brazil, though it does go special interest scientists who are looking for gvt. grants for research, which is not necessarily evil, it is research. My problem really is that I live in L.A. and the air quality is poor and our beaches and water are pretty damn dirty, and nearly all lot of this is due to auto/industrial/shipping emissions. I would spend money on enviro causes out here, but not b/c I think the world is going to end, rather to clean up all the crap I have to look at when I am trying to enjoy the beaches of SoCal. Also, it cannot help tourism to this area when beaches are closed everytime it rains b/c of the run-off. BUT you can bet your sweet free-market cheeks I will be buying stock in companies pursuing alternative energy. You may knock climate change as socialist propaganda, but don't think your more intuitive business or conservative friends aren't looking at the writing on the wall, an entirely new market for business and growth baby!!!

I am sick of hearing about Global Warming. It is total Bullsh!t.

The ice caps on Mars are receding too, is that man's fault? Climate change on both Earth and Mars is cyclical and it is caused by changes in the Sun's radiance and solar wind. NASA has proved this.

Keep these Climate Quacks away from public policy, they are loons!

Global warming is a big socialist scam! The socialists who say global warming is real are the same idiots who say global warming is the greatest danger in the world and the muslim invasions and islamic terrorism is not a danger!

Mid seventies we were going into a mini ice age, now its global warming.
At least get something that's consistent.
Someplace in this is a profit to be made. And don't insult us with that "tree huggers don't care about greenbacks, only mother earth". That's BS!!!!!

It's important we recall that few if any scientist would argue that the earth is not currently within a slightly warming phase. There's no doubt that's true. Our modern methods of accurate global temperature assessment prove that to be true.

However, the earth has warmed and cooled many times in the past, both with and without the presence of human beings. It occurs within a repetitive natural cycle, that's been re-occurring for eons.

Fossil records make it clear that during the warmer periods here on earth, many life forms have been able to flourish, while during the cooler periods here on earth, life forms have been diminished.

The fact is today, the earth has been coming out of a natural cool period known as the "Little Ice Age", and has been slowly & slightly warming, for the better part of the last 150 years. Combined, those facts seem to confuse some people who would like to believe that your and my gaseous emissions are the primary cause of the earth's current slight warming. That makes the true debate at hand, not so much about the current slight temperature rise occurring here on earth & most other celestial bodies (yes, most of the planets within our solar system are slso currently experiencing the same slight warming trend), but our debate should be much more about the true cause of that slight warming that is indeed clearly occurring. With that, we must ask, is there truly an anthropogenic cause for the current slight rises in temperature?

Chemistry & basic physics do tell us that adding additional minor trace gases within our atmosphere does have a slight atmospheric insulating & warming effect. And, there is no doubt that trace gases do play an important role in maintaining the global greenhouse effect, that we all rely on to keep our earth warm enough to maintain habitability. Our atmosphere consists of 78% N2 (Nitrogen), 21% O2 (Oxygen), 1% Ar (Argon) and only 0.038% CO2 (Carbon dioxide).

However, the vast majority of atmospheric CO2 (97%) is naturally occurring. While anthropogenic (human caused) CO2 only adds the remaining 3%. Making the sum total of atmospheric CO2 present 0.038%, of the total atmospheric makeup.

In all honesty, it does make some sense to attribute a small amount of the slight current warming trend to the anthropogenic additions of CO2, and to other reactive trace gases as well. However, Dr. Richard Lindzen and many other well studied climate specialist’ have estimated that anthropogenic CO2 can only account for approximately 2%-3% of the current 0.6 C atmospheric warming that has been observed. Other natural factors play very important roles in maintaining earth’s temperature balance, within our atmospheric system. And all qualified climate experts attribute water vapor (roughly ranging from 1% to 5% of total atmospheric makeup) as playing the most important role in temperature, of all the diverse atmospheric constituents.

Various studies indicate there are several interesting factors currently influencing earth's slight warming trend. One factor that may be causing earth to slightly warm are fluctuations in earth's natural albedo, the amount of solar energy that is naturally reflected back into space, prior to heavily interacting within our atmosphere. And another factor is the amount of solar insolation, the actual amount of solar radiation, being output by the sun.

With all that I’ll add, if anyone can somehow prove or even give substantial evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is indeed the primary culprit causing the earth to currently slightly warm, you'll have much more of my, and the attention of others, who do comprehend earth’s history, & atmospheric physics as well.

Hi,
PBS Frontline Doc and Alanis Morisette (canadian) trashed US up one side and down the other for its big bad economy - while showing belching smokestacks in the background. Richard Branson referred to the US as "the worst sinners on the planet!" when it comes to global warming. But is it rue?? According to the UN when Greenhouse Gasses are looked at on a percapita basis IE a thousand US citizens vs say a thousand canadians, the US is NOT the worst. In fact Alanis, your very own countrymen up there in canada rank #3 in Greehouse gas emissions, Luxembourg is second, and Australia is in first place. The average Aussie cranks out 27% more ggas than does the average american, luxembourg about 11% more, and canada 3% more. "How could that be" you ask? US loves those SUVs! True we do! BUT coal and shale are cheap in canada, and that is what drives their grid - add to that the fact that they live north of minnesota and gotta crank those heaters all winter - plus all that grass they smoke I guess- and, next thing you know your crankin out more smoke than Arnold Swarzzenegger driving around Sacramento in his Hummer. So Americans, quit taking this brow beating from the rest of the world lying down. Between nuclear and coal we are pretty clean, especially in relation to all the products we produce - cleanest factories on the planet! So next time you see Am being trashed for being too greedy etc, just remember - canada is worse!

To all the Jor-Els: Don't send your child in space just yet. Why can you not accept that the earth has been through this one many times before. And why does it offend the Al Gores so much to consider the temperature on Mars?

Comments about local weather predictions are unfair. There is a difference between climate and weather, or so they say.

_I_ will be impressed when the models that predict Waterworld, MD in 20 years, based on historical data, could "predict" last year's climate. So far, all of the models are GARBAGE. The predictions of gloom and doom are based on the models.
GIGO.

GW

"20 years ago, there would have been a few inches on the ground. What happened to it, and why doesn't the Potomac freeze anymore?"

But even more important, why is that a bad thing? That's right folks, we should waste billions of dollars on global warming, just so the Potomac can freeze over again, lol.

Biggest...Scam...Ever!

Anyone who uses and understands numerical models (FInite element, difference, etc) also understands their limitations. Before you put your faith in models first determine:

How close does it approximate global change?
Does it work if you compare it for any time range in the last 1000 years (try any 20, 50 or 100 year period to see how it compares)?
What is the margin of error?
What is paramaterized?
Are the values put into the model reasonable?
Are the results conservative or realistic?

Then decide if you believe the model what is the cost of climate change compared the cost to reduce it.

As for myself the more I have Iearned in grad school the more I realize how imperfect our models are. I also realize that 10-20% error is damn good, but 30-50% is not uncommon.

Can we predict weather out 15 days. How about next summers rainfall? How about when an ice storm out to 48 hours? How about hurricane accuracy and landfall out to 1 week? I will trust the models when they can do that.

GLOBAL WARMING IS OCCURRING AND WE NEED TO IMMEDIATELY TAKE ACTION. To that end I am establishing a Carbon Credit Company, please send me your money and I promise to be a good steward of our environment. I promise you will feel better after sending me your money. I can guarantee that you will feel better if you send more money. You have to hurry because we are all going to die unless you send me your money. Besides my company is new and starting way behind, we have to catch up to ALGORE's carbon credit company.

Additionally, what happened to the ozone layer after consumers have spent billions of dollars to switch refrigerants? Wasn’t the destruction of the ozone layer from Freon a scientific consensus? Now we find that the hypothesis of the Freon reaction was not as strong as previously thought. How could scientific consensus be wrong? However, we are to discount that mistake and jump in with our money to protect the new environmental danger.

Global warming is way too complicated to be resolved in a discussion forum like this. There is so much science to debate it really deserves a better place to really lay all the facts out on the table. These sorts of discussion boards just give people a chance to level one or two hate-filled rocks at the other side. The arguments here just show how huge the gulf is between those on opposite sides. I hope you agree with everything I've said so far, and that we should worry when there is both a huge divide and one that is so bitter, but you will probably not agree with this:

The "truth" of Global Warming cannot be proved or disproved by one faked study or one verified study. What really worries mainstream people around the world is the growing accumulation of evidence that the changes to the environment are becoming more severe and changing more quickly than in any previous generation (or even centuries ago). This is true even though some studies seeming showing worst case scenarios are BS studies. I reject all these worst case scenarios as improbable (not impossible). But if we are merely concerned about such a growing consensus of increasing danger at the same time we reject the Dr. Hills of this world, what is so wrong about our concern?

If we waited for there to be a Republican-sized "consensus" before we took lead out of gasoline, we would still have people dying from lead exposure.

To the PhD in Chemistry:

Why did PhDs like you get it so wrong when you were making your alarmist, fear-mongering predictions about global cooling thirty years ago? Why did brilliant, holier-than-thou climatologists such as you spin up the public about the returning glaciers that we were all supposed to be trapped under by now accoridng to your oh-so-accurate predictions of a returning ice age back in the 70's? Even back then you were able to get the gullible, alarmist press to run with your global cooling BS with front cover stories in socialist rags like Time and Newsweek. (Stories that both magazines have since backed away from because it made them look like fools).

I invite you to check out the NOAA FAQ page and type in "hurricanes" and "global warming" (a favorite fear-inducing topic among the alarmists). You'll quickly find that their is no credible evidence linking hurricanes to GW. Dr. Landsea, the leading hurricane researcher in the world, has pointed this out as well.

Scientists who want to preserve their funding (i.e paychecks) in this atmosphere of hysteria must genuflect before their political overlords and toe the doomsday line. It's how they put the bread on their tables.

So please explain to us poor, ignorant lay people, PhD-boy, why YOU and the other eggheads got it so wrong about global cooling.

The proponents fo global warming use a parameter called global mean average temperature (GMAT). This quanity is arrived at by observing the temperature at a specific point on or above the earth's surface at a specific time of day. The average is then taken over a period of time. By taking the mean of the average temperature over n observations, the GMAT is established. This is said to establish global warming!

The calculated GMAT does not consider the variation of the position of the earth relative to the sun nor the wobble of each of their position in space nor their cyclic positions. The GMAT has not been established as a temporial quanity, therefore, there can be no correlation between seperate observation points for GMAT.

The accuracy of each temperature measurement requires at least two orders less than the nominal to project said GMAT over 100 years.

GMAT has no technical significance. Establishing the global mean average entropy does.

For those who advocate GMAT as the key measure is just demonstrating that the education system they have been subjected to lacks any scientific backing. Dumb the kids down with social acceptance criterion instead of sound physics and engineering principles permits such global warming hoaxes to thrive.

Here's another story from Reuters about how global warming, if left unchecked, this century, could wipe out Indonesia

Did you notice the "if" and "could" there?

As in, if I ran you over, you'd could be dead.

You people are simply hysterical zealots.

The West are a bunch of morons. I have no faith in any western government to to tell us the truth on anything. I am voting for Hillary, to put the final nail in a once superior nation. Mainly because I no longer care.

The biggest scam ever perpetrated on mankind is taxation. And the Global Warming Tax Scam will be the biggest taxation for nothing scam. There is no such thing as Global warming. And if there were, there is nothing man can do about. Government survives by convincing people that they [government] can control something that man cannot. Hitler once said, "It is a great thing for elected officials that the average voter is stupid!"

If you really wanted to reduce CO2 emissions why not reduce taxes on energy that doesn't produce CO2?

Over 19,000 scientists signed a petition backing peer-reviewed research by a major research group in Oregon that denounced the Kyoto Protocol as junk science. There is no mechanism by which CO2 warms the Earth. Global Warming proponents are religious zealots bent on destroying the US economy and redistributing wealth from those who earn it to those who don't.

Will these global warming nuts ever go away? Let's hope they do indeed become extinct.

I want to see the document that contributing scientists sign certifying they agree with the conclusions in the IPCC final report and recommendations to policy makers. It does not, and will not, ever exist as there is no consensus to this nonsense. The writers of the report pick and choose data that supports their views and agenda. Most of this data is from computer models that vastly over estimate the warming potential of C02 as a greenhouse gas. As I learned in an statistics and economics, bad assumptions make bad models. If you want a model that correlates the development of a corn on your big toe and climate change, I can build it for you.

Facts:

1. Earth`s climate is always in a state of flux. Always has been and always will be. We can`t affect it one little bit. Something as cataclysmic as a nuclear holocaust wouldn`t even bump the needle.

2. Al Gore is an overzealous, highly ambitious politician. His "Inconvenient Truth" is, well, a lie. Actually, several lies.

Look closely at the "hockey stick" chart in IC. The number of errors and falsehoods associated with that one chart is astounding. The vertical axis is labeled backwards with the negative numbers on top, causing his curve to prove global cooling. Note further that the neutral point about which the curve oscillates is +0.5, not zero. Note that in the last 50 years or so, the chart shows cooling and warming in the same years. There`s more, much more. The first 950 years or so are not even temp data, but rather proxy temps calculated from concentrations of an isotope of O2 in an ice core. Problem is , there is no accepted proven correlation between these two variables.

3. Climate indeed changes and may be doing so now. The huge factors in climate are solar radiation reaching the earth, sunspots, and cloud cover. The most effective gas at trapping reflected radiation in the atmosphere is, alas, water vapor, far out-doing CO2. None of these is well understood and certainly none are within the control of man.

Don't blame all of us Canadians! We've got our people here too that a denouncing the claims by this Doom and Gloomers. Right from the start of all of this hullabaloo of Global Warming this doctor was telling everybody that the claims by Al Gore, and his cronies were all lies. If fact the liberal media attacked his claims and were subsequently proven correct in his rebutals of the Al-Gorites. I believe his name is Dr. Ball but I could be wrong.
But it has been proven that the Global Warming Crowd flaggrantly exagerated the claims they were putting forward and even submitted test results that were deliberately altered to prove their point, as in the NASA person who changed world temperature graphs. But the Global Warming guru's of the Liberal Media didn't change their position on the information, nor retract the fact they provided to the public false information.
I believe the greater evil is the false information, and lack of credible involvement of the media to research the Global Warming crowd. Its suppose to be proven before printed and running to the presses before the facts are proven is a sacred oath of the press. But bad news is good news for the modern media!

Global warming is gibberish.

Climate change is real.

The sun is going to begin cooling in 2012 because it is the end of the interglacial and the start of the return to "normal" climate - which is Ice Age weather.

The great irony of our history will be written as a bunch of pseudo-druids telling the population their actions were heating up the planet right before the next Ice Age descended and froze them all solid.

Global warming is what bad chromosomes talk about before normal climate change removes them from the gene pool. The great thing about the 12,000 year cycle is that it is the equivalent of a DNA flush'n'rinse in northern climates for trash genetics. We'd all be living in Mike Judge's IDIOCRACY if it weren't for the solar controlled fluctuation of the interglacial periods. Cold temperatures are the best medicine for noxious and ubiquitous air stealers.

The best way to combat global warming is to have all these self-proclaimed experts on climatology KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT. They are the true emitters of greeenhouse gases. Since when did Al Gore get even a BA related to weather study? Uh...Never! Stop scaring people and using it to move your socialist agenda.

They are brain washing kids in schools across the nation, and easily manipulating liberal minds because they are idiots with skulls full of mush and can be easily swayed. They would be the first to be convinced there was never a holocaust too! Its called ignorance!
Global warming= a way to rape the public with new tarifs...thats taxes nimrod...

Computers & software for analyzing data bear no resemblance to what was available in, say, 1975, when some predicted a cooling. In the 19th century, it is obvious we had neither the tools nor the data to predict anything. We are now able to monitor the oceans, atmosphere and landmass with excellent equipment that covers the globe. This information dovetails with powerful computers & software so climatologists can make accurate predictions & identify feed back loops. As for the fantasy that the GW debate is controled by liberals, note the statement released earlier this year by CEO's of most of America's largest corporations, including energy & oil corps, saying GW is real and is caused mainly by human activity. Note the connection between CO2 & increased population & industrial activity? The evidence is overwhelming, & almost all scientists working in climate related science are issuing warnings. Most of the planet has been changed by human activity. We are the dominant force for change; we must control ourselves. It is not a left right political issue; it is a call for our species to advance the sophistication of our society & recognize a responsibility to the planet & other life forms. Remember, astronomers haven't found another earth like planet, so we need to take care of this most beautiful and precious gift we have been given. Our species is being challenged; we should work together in successfully meeting it.

Global Warming=Liberal Slop

Ok...Let's assume the liberals succeed in selling us snake oil.

Can we expect a government run global warming plan to work better than welfare, social security, public schools or "don't ask don't tell"?

"Liberalism, The haunting fear someone, somewhere, can help themselves."

An Inconvenient Fact: The human species is the most adaptable species on the planet.

If money is going to be made because of global warming....let the Free Market and Capitalism figure out!

You know why people make claims that "100 years from now, etc etc?" Because everyone who was around when they said it will be dead by the time it's proven wrong.

"Our species is being challenged; we should work together in successfully meeting it."

Yes, it is being challenged by power-hungry politicians, idiot Hollywood stars with no high school diploma, let alone a scientific background and gullible individuals like yourself who are willing to jump on every BS catastrophe that blows your way.

Wake up! Believing in fairy tales does not make them real. If you want to live a doom and gloom lifestyle, knock yourself out. But keep your hands out of my wallet!

Science has yet to decide on the issue of global warming, if it really is an issue and whom, if anyone, is at fault.

Yes, we see some very slight warming. This warming is during a very small period of time. Natural weather changes would indicate this.

Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases is so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried. To quote some of my friends in science, this will be a joke five years from now just as global cooling was a joke. Maybe you remember the cooling scare, I was working on my masters at that point. Many of us laughed ... but science was convinced it was a real problem. No, the media was convinced and some of us in science, who wanted the ride the money train, got on board.

This is all a combination of misinterpreted and misguided science and much media hype all for the sake of socialist politics. (At least that is what I think is the reason for all of this)

Water vapor is responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which is vital to keep the world warm. Without the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time.

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFC's, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities is only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFC's etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.

This ought to be the end of the argument.

You add the ever changing warming and cooling of the sun and ever changing weather patterns and that should end all this hype.

Nature as more to do with warming as is changes in temperatures on this planet have occurred throughout millions of years. Example, the Great Lakes were formed from melting glaciers. Not too many SUV's at that time!

One big source of CO2 that rivals industrial input are forest fires. But isn't that primarily CO2 that the trees initially took out of the atmosphere to grow? As opposed, that is, to CO2 from carbon that's been sequestered underground for millions of years.

Yes, Which is the same reason why BioFuels are considered CO2 neutral.On the other hand, the release of HUGE quantities of sequestered CO2 from raging forest fires can't be ignored either. While OVER TIME, the forests will regrow and that CO2 will be removed, that is a LONG time period. Further, keep in mind that each year the EARTH outgasses significant quantities of CO2 (far greater than man) and significant quantities are sequestered (some permanently, some semi-permanently, some temporarily) We ONLY guess at the CO2 cycle of the planet, where it all comes from and where it all goes is BEYOND our ability to measure.

One thing we all need to remember, nature has far greater power then man and that power has yet to even be close to be measured by man.

To think we, as human beings, can have the impact that is being suggested by some is naive.

Sure, we do have some impact. Our impact, however, is small. In addition, the last time I checked ... man is part of nature.

No matter what power of nature we talk about, forest fires, solar activity, etc, this power by nature is huge and our ability to control is nil.

Best Wishes,

Dr. Robert Weed
PhD, Atmospheric Sciences
MA, Meteorology
MA, Geology

That's It!!! We need to pull ALL our troops out of Iraq and Attack the SUN, blow it to hell and solve all our Global Warming Problems, then get at that damn Global Cooling

Now I have to go watch a re-run of MASH

Dems are hoping to pass some meaningless legislation, and then when temperatures fall in the coming years, they will claim they saved the planet.

OK, let's get this straight. We know from the 1 mile plus ice core sample taken in Antartica last year (Scientific American) that we have had about 5 ice ages in the last 150,000 years.

We also know the gas concentrations of the air trapped in those samples as air bubbles going back about 150,000 years. As a result we can see their concentraion variations for the last 150,000 years. The core sample indicates about 5 ice ages over the last 150,000 years. So does geological evidence.

Question: If we had MULTIPLE ice ages and not just ONE, then something pulled us out of the ice ages by heating the planet up in between the ice ages. Right? Otherwise we would have just had one 150,000 year ice age. What pulled us out of those ice ages and warmed the planet up 5 times? Did we have carbon based industry 150,000 years ago?

Fact: The cycle of gass concentrations over the last 150,000 years has as a period of about 23,000 years.

Fact: The earth wobbles like a top, coming back to the same angle once every 23,000 years.

Fact: The solar sun spot cycle (linked to solar energy output) has about a 22,000 year period.

Fact: Our ice ages have lasted roughly 23,000 years with 1000 year interglacial periods. (150,000 / 5 = 30,000) Put in 5 interglacial periods at 1000 years each and you predict a glacial period of about 23,000 to 24,000 years. Get it?

Is there any kind of pattern here? How much can man change or contribute to the precessional rotation of the earth or the solar sun spot cycle. How about the fact that the sun is a variable star? We want to save the wetlands for obvious reasons, but what about all of the methane gas produced from the rotting vegetation? Methane is much worse than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Will politics help?

If you can't see any pattern in the facts above then maybe you will respond better to emotion than logic.

Your gonna love this.

If humans did cause global warming due to wetland farming starting 3000 years ago in Asia, is it possible that more than 80% of the worlds population has been SAVED from famine and starvation as a result? In other words, did we make this place warm enough to grow food and avert the next ice age? Can we keep it that way for the first time in the last 500,000 years? If so, are'nt wetland farmers heroes?

If we did, should'nt we try to understand what triggers that swing from a warm planet into a cold one that's COVERED IN ICE?.

Its just my opinion, but I don't think it makes much sense to shape the politics of countries by playing on the emotions of people that don't practice critical thinking. That is, unless you know you can. Who would that be?

Fact: Capitalism is always associcated with democraticly based economies. Want to hurt them?

Uh oh, we would'nt want this to be politicly motivated would we?

Sorry but I just don't think junk science for politics is a "cool" idea.

Look folks, you have to come to grips with two facts:

1. CO2 levels are rising due to combustion of hydrocarbons. You can't deny that.

2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (the C=O bond is an efficient absorber of infrared radiation).

Will this cause all kinds of catastrophe? Who knows, but it will definitely cause the global temperature to increase relative to what it would do without all that CO2 in the atmosphere.

The sky is warming! The sky is warming!

Go home take your medication, the ambulance will be there shortly to take you to the asylum. Truly, all the folks who believe this global warming hoax are mentally deranged, profiteers or budding socialist autocrats. I laugh in your face - fools all.

Reply to Joseph Cascarelli about the Medieval War Epoch (400 years of record high temperatures)
You obviously are over looking the rarely known but yet important invention of the day, the medieval SUV, because it did not have a catalytic converter it put out much more green house gases than modern SUV’s. And don’t forget all those cows passing green house gases.

By the way Joseph Excellent POST!

Ok, about this bill. If these people actually believe the global warming is real, that we will experience wide spread flooding in coastal regions. Why do they still allow any developments of any coastal areas? I live on the coast in Florida 8 feet above high tide and according to these alarmists I will be drowning next week. This is so much bull that words can not begin to describe it. Remember most of these developments on the coast are financed with the blessing of the FDIC!

Eric said it best, this a man made global warming is a myth but we should be good stewards of the planet.

The problem is far greater
Humankind will very likely become extinct
Panic will definitely set in
Immense ramifications
Sheer unparalleled devastation that is on the horizon
No hiding place
The terrible truth of what is on the horizon
Literally destroy many parts of human existence
Nuclear disasters
Food crop failures
High famine
Deaths throughout the world
Water depletion
Financial collapse
Oil disruption
Terrorism
Irrational wars
Disintegration of total energy supply
Overdue pandemic
Terrifying future ordeal
We are literally running out of time
It will be too late
Human existence is predestined not to survive

Dr David Hill
World Innovation Foundation
Bern, Switzerland

Nobody ever said a certain region of the world will always remain as it is today. Things change. Forests die off. Deserts appear where there were once grassy plains. Water erodes and rivers change direction. And yes, ice melts.

Think about where all the liberals live. On the coasts! New York, San Francisco, Seattle. The reason they're up in arms about all of this is because they fear their property values will go down if the water levels rise a couple of meters.

Why don't they just adapt? Isn't that what they are taught in school that their ancestors did? Who are they to hinder evolution? Grow some gills and prove it!

The way I see it, Global Warming is nature's way of wiping the coastal regions clean of liberals.

I'm all for it.

Q: Global Warming - Cause or Effect?
A: Cause

Q: Man-made Global Warming - Cause or Effect?
A: Insignificant

Not long ago we all faced the "Nuclear Winter" of an atomic war....in the 60's it was the coming of another "Ice Age"...now "Global Warming"... and sharks with "Lasers" ... "dogs and cats living with each other...mass hysteria !"

Global idiocy! I feared that Senator Warner would take the opportunity to trot out his liberal ideas now that he knows he can't get re-elected in Virginia.

This is a scam and chasing this rainbow with taxpayer dollars is a violation of the people's trust. This is new high in reckless behavior even for the Senate.

After reading all the comments so far it is clear that the liberal media misses the 70’s. We have a group of people using the exact same signs from Vietnam era walking the line against Iraq. Even Harry Reid says the war is lost and the surge is not working. How clueless can you be and still find your way to work every day?

We are not all freaked out about this myth of Man Made Global warming. I think most of us are mad that our leaders are taking it seriously.

Oil prices are through the roof. At least there aren’t gas lines yet.

Today things are much different than the 1970’s and most of what has been created was in direct response to the failures of the 1970’s. Our nation is nothing if not learning from our past.

In Iraq the soldiers that we have today are the best ever for our nation or any other nation for that matter. You can argue the great generation of WWII were better but by in large they were just more enthusiastic. In most cases that army was not as well prepared, outfitted and trained as our current batch of soldiers. I would almost say that had our current group of soldiers and leaders been in Vietnam the outcome would have been far different. That would have saved the lives of Millions in Cambodia. Just as we are saving lives of Millions in the Middle East as we avoid a civil war and bring stability to a region.

The Ice Age of the 1970’s has been replaced by the myth of man made global warming. The underlying message should be to be good stewards of our planet. Back in 1970 Love Canal caught on fire because of pollution. Now China is the big polluter with industrial chemicals. Most of their drinking water would not pass any countries standards. I can only imagine what the Olympic athletes are going to drink.

Gas prices are high and has begun to seriously effect our economy. The one bright spot of this is California with Arnold mandating 20% of their gas stations must carry alternative fuels. So now Honda is releasing their first hydrogen fuel cell cars in California this year. The hand writing is on the wall. We are less than 10 years from all new cars using hydrogen instead of gasoline. This is going to have ripple effects though out the world. The Middle East financial power will start to diminish; the residents of the Middle East will quickly realize that their governments have raped them by not spending most of their wealth on improving infrastructure and creating industries for their country. Hydrogen burning cars and fuel cell cars will be the rage especially as people prefabricate home owner hydrogen production plants that work off either wind or solar.

This could have taken place in the 1970’s but the vast amount of wealth at the time was in the hands of large companies who were invested in that economy. Today industrial giant’s pail when compared to the information age companies. This wealth redistribution has made it possible that one of many companies who have never produced anything can afford to jump into to smoke stack industries with a technological twist.

Some very intelligent rebutal to Dr. Hill, (where do these people come from).
My question is: If we (The People) are forced to give up SUV's and electricity and I have to use wood to heat my supper and warm my feet at night. How much more carbon will I put into the atmosphere than I do now? Oh, that's right I'll be eating grass because we would have killed all the cattle.
Glad to see there is some "intelligent life left on the planet". Now we need to write to the editorial pages of our local newspapers. Maybe its not too late.

We need to believe the global warming advocates' predictions of weather patterns 50 or 100 years in the future because computers and software are better now than in 1975?

The issue isn't the speed or power of the computer. The issue is the tens of thousands of assumptions that go into any model of something as complex as the Earth's climate. If any one of these assumptions is off even slightly, the results of the entire model are off.

Simulations aren't science because, among other reasons, you can tweak the numbers to produce any outcome you want.

Determining whether simulations are accurate or not is easy: Run them backward and see how well they "predict" what's already occurred. The simulations on which the IPCC's predictions of future catastrophe are based get an "F" in this category -- nowhere NEAR "predicting" what's already occurred, or even what's occurred since the initial simulations were put forth.

Plus, there's always been a tendency in science to seek the dramatic result. If you "discover" the ocean may rise an inch in the next 50 years, nobody cares. If you claim, as Al Gore does, that the sea level's going up 20 feet, you get LOTS of attention. You get money to do research, you get interviewed on TV and in the newspapers, everybody thinks you're the bees' knees.

(The range of sea level rise in the IPCC's reports is seven to 24 INCHES, but why quibble over a tiny exaggeration by a factor of TEN?)

Now that climate science has been mugged, beat up, dressed in a miniskirt and put out on Hollywood Boulevard at night to earn its way, this predisposition toward the dramatic result has been exponentially exaggerated. That's why the scientist/ho's on the AGW research gravy train are yelling louder and louder and trying to convince us the situation is more urgent when (as this forum clearly demonstrates) more and more people are figuring out they're totally full of BS.

Google "Siegenthaler, et al (2005)," a summary of all the ice core studies. The little detail Gore left out of his infomercial is: CO2 CHANGES LAG (COME AFTER) GLOBAL TEMPERATURE CHANGES BY 400 TO 2800 YEARS.

Here's why: The oceans, which cover 75% of the Earth's surface and are miles deep in places, are nature's biggest CO2 sink. As the oceans cool, they absorb CO2. As they warm, they release CO2. Because they're so vast, temperature changes take hundreds to thousands of years.
TEMPERATURE INCREASE CAUSES CO2 INCREASE, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

This also explains another lil' anomaly Al forgot to mention, the fact that 80% of the 1.3 degrees F temperature increase over the last century occurred PRIOR TO 1940 (before humans' CO2 contribution was significant). The temperature dropped from 1940 until about 1975 (leading to the global cooling scare of the early Enviroscare Industry) before it started climbing again.

If it's truly Greenhouse Effect warming, the biggest impact would be seen in the troposphere, about 10 km up, not at the Earth's surface. The weather balloon and satellite records show statistically insignificant temperature changes where it should be occurring. The only record that shows temperature increase is the surface measurements. If you want to see what a total joke the surface temp stations are, go to www.surfacestations.org

Finally, anyone want to guess how much of our atmosphere is carbon dioxide? It varies from place to place, but let's give the AGW true believers their due and go with 380 parts per million, of which all human activities contribute about 4 percent -- a click over 15 parts per million.

So if we completely destroyed all the economies of all the countries on the planet, and stopped all human CO2 emissions -- we'd go from 380 parts per million to 365 parts per million, best-case scenario. And this is going to "save the planet"? I mean, just how stupid do these people think we are?

Methane? A whopping 17 parts per BILLION in the atmosphere, of which about 60% is generated by human activities (mostly dairy and beef cows farting and pooping, dang them).

As other posters have noted, this whole scam isn't about global warming, it's about more government employees, more government power, much higher taxes, and redistribution of wealth on an unprecedented scale.

I'm 53. My father fought the same bastards in WWII. My brothers fought them in Vietnam. Our kids are over in the Middle East fighting to protect us from them right now.

And our Congress is about to roll over and hand our enemies the keys to our country without a fight? I DON'T THINK SO!

I don't care if they're Republican or Democrat, I'll vote against ANY politician who makes any move to destroy this country behind the global warming BS, and I'll do my best to defeat any politician who does the same, even if they're not in my district.

So far there's only one Senator (Inhofe, R-OK) with the cajones to stand up and point out the emperor's nudity. We need to mobilize the same way we did to stop the amnesty for illegal immigrants movement!!!

Enough is enough!!!

(You all sound like a bunch of laypeople trying to tell scientists about science. Oh wait... that's what you are.)
For a lay person with a Masters in Electrical Engineering and old enough to remember: When we were all told that leaded gasoline was bad and the new unleaded gasoline would be ever so much better for the environment and our health because after catalytic conversion, our cars would emit nothing but CO2 and water vapor and we would all live in a happy utopian world of cleaner air. The same scientists that have studied the climate for 50 years are now saying CO2 is a green house gas??

Hey folks, check out the documentary that counters Al Gore and his so called "experts." It is called The Great Global Warming Swindle and is availble from Amazon or NiceneCouncil.com.

Please ~ all rational, thinking people who read this blog and chuckle to themselves about the Global Warming fraud: WRITE YOUR REPRESENTATIVES! They need to know YOUR view! Too many of them are out there listening to the JUNK SCIENCE and need to hear the TRUTH! Please, please, please WRITE TODAY!

To Bill:

Well written, my friend!

I'm in Central Florida, and the fact of the matter is that my insurance rates have SOARED over 125% in the last year! Why? Because of this whole Global Warming Bull Butter! Those same "experts" who predict tomorrow's weather conditions with the 50% accuracy of a coin-flip are now bent on destroying our economy!

Why? Perhaps they think we can then all be dependant upon the socialist politicians for our livelyhood.

Not bloody likely!!!

Don't You Love these Stupid Phonys ? They think if they write a long message and put a impotent sounding title next to their name that will impress us. Hey stupid take a boat out into the ocean and go out from shore ten miles. Then look down at the water and think that this water is 2 to 4 miles deep. and the water extends out for as far as you can see in any direction . Oh ya Man is causing this body of water to heat up! Right! Global Fraud .

"You all sound like a bunch of laypeople trying to tell scientists about science" .....We don't have to be scientists to READ what real scientists are saying....Human caused global warming is a farce!!!

Ted made two good and very simple pro global warming points about CO2.

Whether or not there is global warming is not the issue because the data clearly indicates that there is global warming. No argument there.

The important issue is whether or not the part that man plays in global warming is of any actual significance. So far, the real science seems to say that the part that man plays in global warming is less than the background noise in the NATURAL causes of global warming.

Turning global warming into a political football is the real problem. I think that is what most of the recent referals to the 70's are trying to say. I got the same crap in engineering school 35 years ago also. NONE of the dogma we were told would happen by the environmentalists and professors at the universitys in the '70's actually happend.

It was just politics then, and its just politics now.