snorrrr, snnnnxxxxxx, better than ambien
14th September, 2011 @ 6:09 p.m. (California Time)
So exactly how much of their information is biased and full of crap?
Have you looked at the ice core data for the last 20 thousand years?
If you really believe we have the ability to make a significant difference in the amount of Carbon in the atmosphere, then by all means seed the ocean an capture it. If your right then you could could cause another ice age with just one tanker full of fertilizer.
Look it up. I am not gonna do all the work for you.
14th September, 2011 @ 7:22 p.m. (California Time)
In all the history of the earth high CO2 levels have never prevented the earth from cooling from high temperature cycles, nor have low CO2 levels prevented the earth from warming out of low temperature cycles.
A Hurricane in New England. It happened before check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_England_hurricanes
Floods, droughts, and storms the same things that the climate panic mongers warned about when they were predicting an Ice Age in the 1970s.
Al Gore flies around in a private jet, but my using a light source that is pleasant to my eyes is supposed to doom the world. Gore bought an ocean front estate; something tells my that he doesn't believe his fascist nonsense ether.
14th September, 2011 @ 9:43 p.m. (California Time)
What CORPORATIONS do you two work for? BP and Exxon? let the Corporations run your life, you two really think that the tons of crap we dump into the air every day has no influence?
14th September, 2011 @ 10:40 p.m. (California Time)
Oh dear Bill sucked in like the rest. The fact that over 97% of CO2 is not caused by man has obviously eluded you. Or that the biggest manmade contribution to CO2 is by slash and burn farming which has been going on quite a while. whilst you bleat about corporations running people\'s lives it\'s the climate crappers running yours and the governments wasting billions of $$ of taxpayers money on this little gravy train. Even Greenpeace could only find $80 million from corporations to counter the onslaught of some $80 billion now poured in by governments and corporations to fund this so called science which as everyday goes past is failing to fit the models or predictions. There have been more defections from the alarmist camp to the hang on a minute camp simply because the empirical evidence that is coming in does not fit their theory.
15th September, 2011 @ 5:17 a.m. (California Time)
The extra CO2 does make plants grow better.
There are a lot of pollutants that I worry about, but CO2 is not one of them.
I like nuclear power because of it energy density, and it can be counted on to produce electricity 24/7, without releasing mercury, NOx, CO, and such.
15th September, 2011 @ 5:33 a.m. (California Time)
@Dory: I did the work for you
UN 2007 Report concludes that \"Evidence is now "˜unequivocal' that humans are causing global warming\".
15th September, 2011 @ 6:24 a.m. (California Time)
Some people are amazingly stupid about this situation
15th September, 2011 @ 6:27 a.m. (California Time)
"Look it up. I am not gonna do all the work for you."
Um, you're the one making the affirmative claim. The burden of proof is on you.
15th September, 2011 @ 6:41 a.m. (California Time)
I will watch sometime today, but there is some much corruption and political influence around global waring, that no one knows how much is true info.
15th September, 2011 @ 8:04 a.m. (California Time)
This week, Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever has resigned from the American Physical Society citing its stance on global warming. In his resignation letter he writes:
\"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this \'warming\' period.\"
15th September, 2011 @ 8:58 a.m. (California Time)
Poor bill, he\'s right. You got sucked in like so many other people.
If you look at http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/, you will read \"At the same time the Gore presentation prepared to hit the air, record cold and below-freezing temperatures were forecast overnight in much of the Midwest, despite the fact that we are still in summer. Adding insult to injury, forecasters expected rare summer snows to fall overnight in Wisconsin, South Dakota, Wyoming and Colorado.\"
and glom on this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/weather-cycles-cause-a-drop-in-global-sea-level-scientists-find/2011/08/25/gIQA6IeaeJ_story.html
All gore should be taken to the ICC for the lies he perpetuates because it has caused many people to panic. Until of course, they wise up and read the truth about the lie.
15th September, 2011 @ 9:08 a.m. (California Time)
The report you cite was produced by the UN\'s IPCC. A recent survey of by Scientific American of its readership found that 81.3% of the 5,188 respondents viewed the IPCC as \"a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda.\"
After numerous errors and falsehoods in the IPPC report were noted by the press, the UN commissioned the InterAcademy Council to undertake a review of the IPCC. Among other things they found:
\"[A]uthors reported high confidence in statements for which there is little evidence, such as the widely quoted statement that agricultural yields in Africa might decline by up to 50 percent by 2020. Moreover, the guidance was often applied to statements that are so vague they cannot be disputed. In these cases the impression was often left,
incorrectly, that a substantive finding was being presented. \"
15th September, 2011 @ 9:23 a.m. (California Time)
All scientists who have received funding and supported the Global Warming HOAX need to be fired or thrown into jail...
15th September, 2011 @ 10:36 a.m. (California Time)
\"This week, Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever has resigned from the American Physical Society citing its stance on global warming. In his resignation letter he writes: \"
Ivan Giaever isn\'t a climate scientist, he\'s a physicist, and his opinion on the subject means as much as Stephen Hawking\'s on evolution or Richard Dawkins\' on the Big Bang.
He\'s also made such over-the-top statements as calling concern about climate change \"a new religion\".
\"I will watch sometime today, but there is some much corruption and political influence around global warming, that no one knows how much is true info. \"
Climate scientists know what the true information is. There isn\'t \"so much corruption and political influence around global warming\". The libertarian ideology requires the belief that completely unfettered capitalism is the solution to all of humanity\'s problems. Faced with global warming and the need for global, government and regulatory measures to combat it, a portion of people have chosen to deny the facts rather than change their theory in the face of contradictory evidence. Even otherwise rational, science-favoring people like Penn and Teller have gone to war with climate science to preserve their libertarian beliefs.
\"A recent survey of by Scientific American of its readership found that....\"
WOW. An opinion poll of readers of a magazine available on a newsstand doesn\'t make something true!
\"...will conclude with a one hour presentation by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore.\"
I like to think of him as the world\'s vice president.
15th September, 2011 @ 10:41 a.m. (California Time)
Your very own article shows that they are NOT \"telling the truth about the climate...\" because YOU included \"CRISIS\" in the same sentence. You and THEY are full of BULL.
15th September, 2011 @ 10:59 a.m. (California Time)
@fireslug i agree man. al gored has gotten fat and rich from all his lies
15th September, 2011 @ 11:47 a.m. (California Time)
I find it interesting that all the doubters above take time to read and comment on something they do not believe in.
What is their agenda in trying to convince everyone else not to believe in something they don\'t believe in? I mean what is there to gain?
Maybe they could respond and explain.
15th September, 2011 @ 1:34 p.m. (California Time)
Sam Bowles: a tankful of chemical fertilizers is how we got to global cooling and atmospheric warming, Venus comes to mind. The fossils fuels will be easy; www.fuellessusa.com has been in operation since 1830 and solar will compress the air even as you drive you shinny V8s. The Grid will be a bigger challenge because man is lazy.
The problem is Dory is sulfur deficient and so is Al Gore. Everyone on the Planet is sulfur deficient and therefore lacking the ability to "reason." We believe the lies because it is easier than reasoning.
We spend the money, look in the mirror and slap yourself, its our fault.
Organic Sulfur could make Al Gore and Mike Moore realize the enemy are the corporations, and we intend to change that.
Question can stock holder be sued? the sharks have been given their scent.
Carbon dioxide produced by respiration is not the same carbon dioxide produced by burning anything and those who say otherwise are unaware of the revolution which has begun and their is nothing the rich and powerful can do a damn thing about.
Being that GE is doing nothing about the nuclear spring from Fukushima we argue buy nothing from GE, not even a transistor, until they do something about their 'Pinto."
Boycott to Bankruptcy, we spend the money and change is about dangerous for the rich.
the Agents of the Crystalline Matrix
15th September, 2011 @ 1:46 p.m. (California Time)
rising temperatures correlate with decreased gamma rays. The gamma rays are reduced by sunspots. The temperature has not been rising the past few years. Henrik Svensmark has written a book,Chilling Stars, which explains the cosmic rays from exploding stars help to generate low level clouds, which reflect the sun. The correlations are strong over several time frames from years to millions of years. CO2 and temperature have rough correlations, sometimes the temperature rises ahead of the CO2 levels. Recently the CLOUD experiment at CERN verified that gamma rays increase cloud formation. The current man made global warming story doesn\'t hold water. The IPPC issues reports that are not peer reviewed. I suspect another for their reports, global domination. Time will tell. The earth is in a cooling period while CO2 is rising. Now if you want to stop burning oil because you may run out, that\'s another matter.
Its the Sun that affects the climate, not CO2. CO2 may account for 1 degree Celcius in 100 years, but the cloud reflectivity accounts for most of it.
15th September, 2011 @ 3:38 p.m. (California Time)
Give up. Al Gore is a liar.
15th September, 2011 @ 4:18 p.m. (California Time)
The responses to this article are, for the most part, a wonderful collection of disproved denialist nonsense.
Cloud reflectivity, CO2 as a plant food, ice ore data and so on with the litany of misinformation. These muppets should have a read at http://www.skepticalscience.com/ to see how ridiculous all of their opinions are.
Answering each of them individually is a waste of time as it is clear none of them have ever read anything beyond the rubbish that bounces around in their own echo chamber.
15th September, 2011 @ 6:42 p.m. (California Time)
I hate to correct someone on my side, but Ed D substituted \"Gamma Rays\" in the place of \"Cosmic Rays\", and sunspots are one of the attributes of higher solar activity, more powerful magnetic fields are another, in this case the important one because more of the energetic particles that are called Cosmic Rays are deflected from the earth when solar activity is high. Which means when the sun is in its hotter faze it also is deflecting the cooling particles from deep space.
15th September, 2011 @ 8:58 p.m. (California Time)
This article lost me as soon as it mentioned Al Gore who in my opinion is a complete hypocrite as his own home uses more power than an inner city block of appartments.
15th September, 2011 @ 9:20 p.m. (California Time)
Re; dgate - September 15, 2011 @ 01:34 pm PDT
We do not want to live under the fascist government that the AGW hoaxers are trying to inflict on the world. To quote someone smarter than I, \"All it takes for evil to Triumph is for the good to do nothing.\"
The UN is one of the most corrupt organizations that did not start out as a criminal endeavor.
16th September, 2011 @ 1:21 a.m. (California Time)
When having a debate about a subject, it is only a balanced debate when both sides are allowed to put forward their point of view, without ridicule from the opposing side and its supporters, or being derided or vilified for holding an opposing opinion.
The large amount of vilification of those who oppose the claim of \"climate change\" and \"global warming\", can only lead a person to conclude, that those who are pushing these ideas have much to hide.
If we are consistently presented with only one side of the debate, how can we accurately make an informed decision about the subject.
Why do they who are proposing that there is a problem, do not allow an honest and open presentation of all data, both pro and con.
Why is there a continual push to accept what they say.
Why is it that they engage in a debate that is rife with \"emotionalism\" and lack of transparency.
We have a former politician presenting one side of the argument, and his snake oil presentation is dodgy at best, deliberately misleading at worst, yet it is still presented as \"truth\".
When opposing data that conflicts with the current so called consensus, is deliberately altered to produce a different outcome, or just deleted so as to prohibit it from being presented.
It can only lead to a conclusion that the proponents of this global crisis are dishonest and lying to everyone.
16th September, 2011 @ 6:37 a.m. (California Time)
Well said. Thank you.
16th September, 2011 @ 7:40 a.m. (California Time)
It all boils down to one thing..... \"CARBON TAX\"
All it ever wat about.... all this time.
16th September, 2011 @ 11:53 a.m. (California Time)
To Lawrence Hoffman
I refer you to http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html
which pretty much decimates \"Skeptical Science\"
16th September, 2011 @ 8:30 p.m. (California Time)
Thanks to Mark Smith for the link to LuboÅ¡ Motl\'s rant.
It was the best laugh I\'ve had all day.
As for \"decimating\" Skeptical Science; what a joke. Most of his points are well disproved in the scientific literature and it is obvious that he has as much grasp on climate science as I do on pole dancing.
Do yourself a favour and read some of the actual science.
19th September, 2011 @ 12:53 a.m. (California Time)
Re; Ludwig Heinrich
Which carbon trading scam employs you.
19th September, 2011 @ 8:02 a.m. (California Time)