News-Record.com

Okay Mr. Hudson, since you have defined the requirements for your belief, you need to go a litte further and specify your definition of "proof". And here, I'm afraid, if you are not precise, you are merely another windbag railing against Al Gore. Since an overwhelming majority is not satisfactory, then what is acceptable to you? And be honest. If the scientists all have to be backed by James Dobson, or Pat Robertson, or Bill O'Reilly, or Sean Hannity, or a senator with -R after his/her name, be a man and fess up to your bias.

By the way, many of us were alive thirty years ago, and to compare the rumblings about an ice age to this overwhelming majority is an obvious diversion. How many books/articles were written about the ice age? Compare that to the number of items about global warming. Nice try, but one or two of us still pay attention.

The 1968 story on the coming "Ice Age" is a bit like diss'ing the lightbulb before the details were worked out. In 1968 the data was limited to a few decades .. since then Scientists have worked out a few more details.

BTW - perhaps Mr. Hudson is "cool" with the Wisconsin Glaciation .. but I'll guess if it happened again in the near term it would play havoc with the oil rigs up there ... so again I proffer: It's not the change itself it's the rate of change. It's not the use of oil it is the foolish wastefullness.

One other observation: Those that once said "Global Warming is inproven" have morphed to .. "Anthropomorphic Global Warming is inproven." ... See how subtle they are .. slimmy might be a better term.

btw - I'm still waiting on Bitting Dog or Tony Baloney to report how much savings there will be at the gas pump .. and when we will see it .. after we drill America like swiss-cheese.

"How many books/articles were written about the ice age? Compare that to the number of items about global warming. Nice try, but one or two of us still pay attention."

Yet more consensus Howie?

There is no proof. And the -Rs are in bed withe the -Ds and the -Ms and -Ss.

This is the largest money making scam in history- and Gore and his minions are profiting obscenely.

Yours is a false religion.. "be a man and fess up to your bias."

Poorly written letter--pitiful command of the subject, an opinion disguised as some kind of fact. Ellis bought it though. P.T. Barnum is smiling.

Okay WJ, you've walked into my favorite argument about this topic: money. Who has the more compelling financial motive for the proof/denial of global warming?

On the one side, we have a group of scientists -- for the sake of argument let's say it's 90% of climate and atmospheric scientists -- who are apparently willing to either falsify their research, or draw unsubstantiated conclusions, for the sake of furthering their careers, which seems somewhat risky to me, what with peer review, etc. (Note: I've asked at least ten times for someone to provide more compelling motive for all this false science, and none of you has provided anything more substantial than this. If you have something better, I'm happy to listen.)

On the other side of the argument, you have the most profitable companies in history, who could spend a few billion out of petty cash to grease some politicians, and create enough disinformation, to keep the money train on schedule for its frequent drops at the bank.

If you are of a sound mind, and even toy with logic only occasionally, the financial motive is clearly on the side of the most profitable companies in history. Who gains if global warming is proven? The windmill and solar panel lobby? And who loses -- big oil. Which way is the deck stacked?

So other than Al Gore, who is profiting obscenely? And how does it compare to those profits that are thousands of times higher than Al Gore's private jet bill?

My bias is well documented. What about yours? Take Gore out of the equation, and who really benefits from global warming? Hardly anybody.

Sorry to keep trying to bring logic to this conversation, but it's been conspicuously absent.

Interesting point with the wording, J.D.R. I regret I haven't paid attention to that subtlety. I'd bet both sides have embraced it for their own reasons, though. Not much save-the-world funding for repeatable natural occurrences.

I visited with my daughter over the weekend and she said something that really struck me. Keeping in mind the right place/right time development of the planet, she said her global warming worry was that we might be putting off (at best) or completely derailing (at worst) whatever our next significant human development is supposed to be by trying to solve a problem that only we can see. There were simultaneous independent developments of significant importance throughout our history. Chinese and Middle Eastern agricultural development is a good example. The time was right, the planet had done what it needed to with developing and placing the hardy and useful plants in front of somebody who saw what to do with them, and pretty soon we had civilization and architecture and everything else.

Perhaps our collective fear of global warming is what will spur the Next Big Thing. Maybe that's how it's supposed to work. But what if we're doing exactly opposite of what we should and it stops the development altogether? What if the planet is trying to put us in position for our next long-term requirement for the success of our species, but we ignore it and fight against it because... well, why is it we're doing this again?

Other than the carbon tax, of course.

Roger

"Any scientist worth his salt knows that science doesn’t work by consensus, but by proof. We would do well to ignore Gore and O’Brien as well, at least until someone can prove what the ideal temperature for the planet really is."

There is plenty of proof, which drives the consensus. Others have shown you this but I am more interested in your second sentence.

There isn't an 'ideal' temperature for the planet. The planet and most of its species will adapt to any temperature range quickly and efficiently. Others have survived ice ages, hugely varying temperatures, meteor strikes and more, don't worry about the planet.

Now HUMANS cannot adapt like this. Yes we can live anywhere on the planet, create housing and machines to protect us, but we can only do so much with our intellect. We have evolved into homo sapiens and become the dominant life-form in the last 10,000 years of almost constant temperature. We are designed to fill a niche in this temp. range; and more importantly, so are our major food sources, machines, and more. If we leave our temperature range, our farms will die, there will be even less water than now, more disease, etc. etc. There will be even greater mass starvation, drought, human movement, warfare over limited resources and more. THAT is what we are worried about, not some omnipresent gaia figure.

I do admit environmentalists have it wrong: save humans through green action, not the planet.

You know what may be even scarier than global warming?

The fact that every single issue seems to be divided by whether you vote blue or red.

How is it possible that people are such sheep that they base their opinion on global warming, homosexuality, the war in Iraq, birth control, stem-cell research, the environment in general, firearms, etc on whether they are a democrat or republican. It's just strange to me. The only issue I've seen that seems to defy this is immigration but even that is skewed in one direction.

I don't know whether global warming is real or not. And neither does anybody else. Not really. I do know that air quality sucks, resources are limited and IF global warming is real, then we owe it to ourselves and children to try to do the right thing. Cutting carbon emissions, conserving natural resources, recycling, etc are all good things. If doing these things helps global warming, then that's even better.

Kinda like belief in hell. It may not be real but IF it is, you better hope you lived right.

Now you've gone and done it Slaan. You've introduced another unproven scientific crackpot theory: evolution. Don't you know that there is no proof of that? Clearly you are a product of liberal public indoctrination/education, and not enough Christian learning.

Earnestine,

You have touched on another great point. There are many people -- many in this blog in fact -- who acknowledge the warming, but paint the issue as either caused by man, or part a naturally occurring cycle, as if there can only be one cause.

Why can't it be both? I have never denied that the earth cools and warms over centuries. But if we are causing the warming trend to be greater than it naturally should, we need to consider what is required to reduce that contribution.

Also a great point on the blue or red thing. Do you think we ever would have gotten to the moon if the political climate were so divisive?

I think it's pretty egotistical for the global warming crowd to think that over the last 100 years humans have drastically changed a planet that has existed for thousands of years. We are not at the top of the chain here...Mother Nature is. We try to prevent floods and yet they still occur. We try to forewarn about tornadoes and hurricanes, yet people still die. We have absolutely no way to detect earthquakes. Wildfires rage every summer, no matter how much we try to control them.

I have no proof to say global warming is real or not...I tend to believe not. My personal opinion is that most of the world's weather is controlled by La Nina and El Nino. If you do believe that we are to blame, then please, give up your vehicles, turn off your heat and air conditioners, grow your own food, and leave the rest of us alone!

The bottom line is we can't create a new economy and transfer of wealth without making consensus into science.

We can't encourage people to conserve and change their lifestyles unless they think it's the the issue is the real deal which we can achieve via propaganda as we have the schools and government on our side now.

We can't get government and private research grants in academia unless it's for something supporting the consensus.

Get with the program people. Our children are all gonna die unless we save the earth and become equal to other nations (except those that are developing, they get a pass).

WHERE IS THE MOTIVE?????

WHO GAINS; WHO LOSES???

FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!

It's so simple! Create a new economy, or protect the vaults?

"Do you think we ever would have gotten to the moon if the political climate were so divisive?"

Probably only if one party was trying to spite the other by doing so.

This country still tends to come together during a national crisis (recall 9/11). Maybe it's the lack of a real national crisis that has enabled us to have time to squabble and draw lines between each other the way we have.

Not that I'm wishing for a crisis or anything.....

The Earth is just a big biological machine, made of living components. So like any other machine, it generates heat output as it works. When the machine rests or stops working, only then does it begin to cool down. Now we do have a responsibility to stop destructive behaviour and demonstrate constructive behaviour but humankind rarely wants to do what is Necessary, but instead only what is Fun and provides immediate gratification.

Long Live the UISA!

I think we all might agree that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and that an increased concentration of it in the atmosphere leads to higher temperatures. It only makes sense that the man is contributing to the CO2 in the atmosphere. We're driving our cars and burning our coal aren't we? This releases carbon that was previously locked up in the ground. More greenhouse gases equals higher temperatures. But like Slaan said, the Earth will be okay. It will seek equilibrium and eventually lower the carbon dioxide concentration itself and return to a cooler temperature; essentially, Le Chatlier's Principle at it's finest. But this still leaves humans sweltering in the heat while our water and food supplies shrivel up and die until the Earth 'decides' to make the swing back to cool. How many of us will be left then?

Whether there is global warming are not I do not know. The Russian say we are are going into global cooling. Howie follow the money, oil companies can sell ever drop of gas produce. I tell you how to screw the oil companies, do not buy their products. Be a man stand up for what you believe, no more gas, no electricity for Howie, show them. My opinion if Gore was sincere he would not use 20 times the average amount of energy.

Brilliant solution Dog. When I was much younger, I vowed never to buy Exxon gas, because of how I thought they'd totally mishandled the Valdez thing back in the 80's. Looks like they've done okay without my $$.

My point is not to punish big oil. I'm just trying to cut through all the diversion tactics and partisan garbage that is impeding the possibility of honest debate. And when I read preposterous comments like the suggestion that scientists by the thousand are generating bogus results to justify their grants, and that's the reason for the GW hysteria, I feel compelled to respond with my trusted tool: logic.

WHERE IS THE MOTIVE?????

WHO GAINS; WHO LOSES???

FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!

It's so simple! Create a new economy, or protect the vaults?

Total grant funding for for 2000- 2003-
Recipients of Funds from Foundations for Climate Activities

$8,304,803,330

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/289.pdf

Scientists certainly know which side their bread is buttered on.

Once again, your adherence to a false religion blinds you to the fact that the profit motive drives research.

If you have proof that these numbers are wrong, I will be glad to examine them.

"A lie repeated a hundred times becomes the truth."
-Chairman Mao

In 2007: "Profits for the [oil] industry totaled over $155 billion, 75% of which were earned by the five major companies..."

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/103679.pdf

"A lie repeated a hundred times becomes the truth."
-Chairman Mao

Indeed.

I didn't see the $8 billion number in that report. Where was it?

Ellis, you need to pack it in on this one. It's obvious you haven't a clue.
"Once again, your adherence to a false religion blinds you to the fact that the profit motive drives research."

Hint: False religion is nothing but a smokescreen and you've once again bought into the words of the oil companies.

Oh, and Ellis, the quote from Mao should be directed toward the folks you're in bed with on this one.

I've gone from laughing at these oil industry shills to shaking my head at them.

Do you wonder why Giddy Dole, Dick Cheney, John McCain and George Bush are for lifting the moratorium on drilling??? Ellis, have you read anything about that...I mean other than the oil company side?

They are trying to get the ban lifted before Bush leaves office, because they still owe the oil companies for bankrolling their campaigns through spouses/pacs/bundling of maximum contributions and of course the Bully Pulpit of advertising.

Ellis, open your eyes for just a moment. Put down that Bill O'Reilly book. Think for yourself for once.

Follow the Money!

The George C. Marshall Institute no longer shows an overview of recent funders, but in 2000 [4]

This includes:

* $50,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 1999 for "support for science and public policy education programs;
* $50,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2000 for general support;
* $60,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2001 for "climate change work";
* $80,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2001 for "'global climate change program" in 2002; plus a further $10,000 for the Awards Dinner;
* $95,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation in 2003 for Global Climate Change Program
* $145,000 ExxonMobil Foundation in 2004 for "climate change" and a further $25,000 from Exxon Corporation for "Awards Dinner -- Climate Change Activities";
* $90,000 from ExxonMobil Foundation for, according to the Institute's IRS return, "climate change" and a further $25,000 from ExxonMobil Corporate Giving for "Awards Dinner and General Operating Support"; and
* $85,000 from ExxonMobil Corporate Giving for "General support and annual dinner" in 2006.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute

I read that Marshall report at lunch. It said lots of grant money goes to a lot of people.

I find it interesting that most of that money came from the feds .. and the fed agencies - while not controlled - are slanted towards the admin's position because the top people are political appointees and they certainly sway the organization. So there must have been a nudge to dismiss global warming .. yet most of the reports still support global warming. Maybe there really is something to it .... if all the kings horses and all the kings men ... can't do much nudging..

Mark - who thinks it pretty egotistical that over the last 100 years humans have drastically changed a planet:

Let's compare relatively undeveloped Congo:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Earth?imgsize=320&opt=-z&lat=356&ns=North&lon=345&ew=West&alt=7&img=learth.evif

with New York:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Earth?imgsize=320&opt=-z&lat=40.7517&ns=North&lon=73.9942&ew=West&alt=7&img=learth.evif