News-Record.com

This link has the name of 60 scientists who are anthropogenic global warming skeptics, if you're interested in names for verification purposes.

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

Personally, I'm horrified by the animals breeding too early in the spring. There's too much sex as it is, and I think these animals should wait until they're a little more mature. Same for the flowers: who wants a bunch of lousy blooms ruining the wintry landscape?

I'm with Al Gore: the global thermostat was set perfectly in 1898.

Oh come on brian, the vast majority of those scientists are foreigners; they don't really count.

from Brian's link: "When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change .. "

the RELATIVE importance .. does not mean "humanity is the [sole] cause" .. nor does it mean "global warming" is not happening.

"The debate" IS over, at least as far as "it's happening". Certainly the computer models are not yet perfected .. but that does not mean things are not changing FAST.

The funny thing to me it all the doubting Thomas' of the world seem to be OK with federal money for "their side" .. but are not OK with federal money for "warming-ciltists" .. and are not even OK with no federal money for no one .. their side "needs" it: 30 some Billion dollars in 1995.

OK - it's not funny, it's sick,

http://blog.news-record.com/opinion/letters/archives/2008/05/bill_before_congress_would_end.shtml#comments

http://blog.news-record.com/opinion/letters/archives/2008/05/dont_blame_oil_industry_for_es.shtml#comments

warming-ciltists = warming-cultists

algore says the scientists who dispute globull warming are being paid by Bush to do so.

That Bush is one evil mother, huh?

"Does Thomas challenge the well-established fact that the earth has warmed a full degree Fahrenheit in the last 20 years? Does he deny that the ocean has warmed and that the Greenland ice cap is melting at an astonishing rate? What does he say to the fact that glaciers all over the world are retreating and that rivers and lakes are freezing later in the fall and thawing earlier in the spring? Has he considered the amazing number of plants flowering and animals breeding earlier in the spring? What about the numerous examples of animals and plants moving up mountains and toward the poles in response to a warmer climate? Are all the thousands and thousands of scientists who have gathered such evidence cult members?
Most of these scientists studied for years at the best universities in the United States and the world. Are we to believe they all ignore evidence and facts? Who is the actual cult member here?"

"..here comes the sun (dee dee dee dee) here comes the sun, and I say, it's alright....."

All bow down before lord gore- heretics will be taxed to death. Dispensation to the fat cats.

it's funny the strongest defense you have for needlessly pissing away finite resourses is .. algore.

yawn.

here's a funny one:

http://www.bobbyshred.com/globalwarmingfools.html

and right at the top is bogus bull:

"More Than 15,000 Scientists Speak Out Against
The Global Warming Myth"

"More Than 15,000 Scientists Speak Out .." not "Against Global Warming Myth" but "against the climate accord concluded in Kyoto ..." which attempt to limit CO2 not "force drastic cuts in energy use ... "

To much CO2 hype? yes
Rapid Climate Change hypothetical? no.

Anthropogenic global warming AKA climate change is the new Marxism.

One more, The fact that "consensus" is taught as science in the Universities shows how worthless an undergraduate degree has become.

I find it egocentric that mankind thinks it has the ability to warm the entire atmosphere and even more so that it has the ability to cool it with govt. mandates.

It's also interesting that global warming alarmists can predict what the temperature will be 50 years from now while Eric Chilton on News 2 cannot accurately predict the temperature next Wednesday.

Dawg-gon-it.....I have missed all of the fun!

Three words here!

CYCLES
CYCLES
CYCLES!!!!!

If ANYONE proclaims to "know" what the climate is doing (ie global warming) they are lying!!!!!!!!!!!

Recorded climate history only goes back "maybe" 200-400 years......past that extrapolation from glacial data can extend another couple of hundred.....hate to burst the bubbles.....BUT the rock record has recorded MUCH worse climatic shifts well BEFORE man ever set foot on the earth (interpret how you will slaan)

and NO one here is taking into count the sun cycles.......

silly global warmists.....

What temperature is best? A valid question and one I've not heard answered.

And a fun site to visit:
http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

My favorites are the ones that measure the temperatures of the parking lots. Although the ones with light bulbs inside are pretty funny, too.

This is about little other than developing an interesting new way to tax us while accomplishing nothing and still keeping the blame-the-public option open for their failures.

Seriously though, what's Earth's ideal temperature?

Thanks in advance,
Roger

294.7 K

You're welcome.

http://green.yahoo.com/blog/ecogeek/539/ecogeeks-get-all-the-girls.html

A reason to at least pretend you care.

Good to have another geek around, rahrah. That could prompt an interesting discussion on a homogeneous Earth and where it stands in local or solar macrosystems/microsystems, and how much leverage we realistically have in "solving" the problem. Things seek their proper level regardless of what we might want.

And I have to disagree with your link. A Corolla might make one appear humble and approachable, but I'd place another bet that you'd get more, ahem, interest if you drove to class in a Maserati GranTurismo. Humble and approachable can be cultivated.
http://www.esquire.com/features/what-ive-learned/ESQ1299-DEC_WILLIE

(read the last line)

Roger

Roger,

I beg to differ with your assertion. I did, in fact, indicate the earth's ideal temperature: whatever it was in 1898. That is, one degree cooler than whatever it is now.

Even that one degree produces the excessive bloomage and promiscuous animal sex noted in the letter.

JDR, your cherry picking and dubious conclusions from the Canada letter are, I suspect, obvious even to you, most notably in your substitution of "global warming" for "climate change."

Naturally, of course, the earth gets hotter and colder in cycles. But with a concerted effort, we can air condition the entire planet, keeping it at its ideal 1898 temperature.

"The writer is with the Department of Biology at UNCG."

An ANONYMOUS counterpoint letter. That's a first.

I don't think they're talking about Corollas, Roger. I think they're talking about the Prius or the fancy shmancy Air Car.

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1392/69/

And you're right, the GranTurismo might get a little more attention, it'd just probably be from a different type of lady, if you know what I mean.

"Seriously though, what's Earth's ideal temperature?"

imho .. there is none .. there is only the temperature we are now and a slew rate to a different temperature. Too fast slew = change too fast to adapt.

That is the ONLY issue of importance.

Brian .. I made no substitution.

The original link from bobbyshred-the-wack said "Global Warming Myth", as did the headline in the linked "Capitalism Magazine" .. but NOWHERE in the actual article is the term "Global Warming Myth" used. NOWHERE in the actual article is the term "Global Warming" used .. and that was my point.

bobbyshred and Douglas Houts are - apparently - deceitful assholes that twist things to their advantage.

More proof: bobbyshred and Douglas Houts use the work "scientist" .. but anyone can sign that degree .. even me who as a registered engineer would certainly be "qualified" under #7 of the petition's "criteria" ...

"Engineering and general science includes 9,992 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs."

... but I ain't no scientist .. nor do I pretend to be.

More proof: According to the link, 15,000 signed "within a period of less than six weeks". That was 10 years ago (May 12, 1998) .. and since then only another 16.072 have signed ... hmmm ... talk about a low slew rate.

Brian444, I read it again and think your initial increased sex comment was pretty clever. Anti-global warming with an abstinence imperative. And make sure there's no music being played so that no one mistakes it for dancing.

--

Good car point, rahrah. I interpreted "latest fuel-efficient car" wrong, as usual. I continually forget that a used two year old 40mpg Corolla, requiring no new resources or additional environmental impact, is somehow more difficult to be self-righteous in than a brand new Prius that has to be developed, tested, corrected, re-tested, built, shipped, advertised, etc.

And forgive me for getting a little off-track: The air car is a neat idea, but I doubt we'll ever see it. It looks like it would weigh less than 800 pounds (about the same as a Goldwing motorcycle), and I'm sure that's sans airbags, ABS, stability control, and all the other governmental requirements that would make it heavy, expensive, inefficient, and fairly pointless for our market.

It seems like it would make a good sub-25mph city car, though. Or a retirement community car. Slap a Buick emblem on that thing, dial some float into the suspension, put some portholes on the side...

I know Tata just acquired Jaguar and Rover, so maybe they'll figure out a way to incorporate the technology in their V8s. Air compression is an energy-intensive task, though. Anyway, thanks for the link. I'll have to read more about it.

--

J.D.R., you're right on no ideal temperature. And possibly right on adaptation. But as much as we like poetry and sculpture, survival and reproduction are our only genetic goals. Perhaps we need a quick strengthening and this is the way the world has decided to force it upon us. Should we struggle against it? Probably. Shall we succeed? Who knows. But, as someone else mentioned above, our egos are stronger than we can imagine, and can be easily used against us. I've realistically got another 12-14 years left, and I'm sure I'll see a carbon tax before I die. And if, in 50 years, we don't have a 0.01 drop in temperatures, the politicians can say we're not doing enough and our only choice is to raise the tax even more. It's win-win for them. I don't blame them for embracing it. After all, what politician could resist a tax on breathing?

Roger

Husbands and wives have been arguing about the proper setting for the thermostat ever since the thermostat was invented. Why must we all agree that the earth is too warm? Maybe some of us are still a little cold.

JDR: True, the article only speaks of the uncertainties of climate change and its causes. You, however, substitute "global warming" here:

"does not mean "humanity is the [sole] cause" .. nor does it mean "global warming" is not happening."

Climate change is happening. In fact, the climate has changed throughout human history.
The temp is up about 1 degree celsius for the llast 100 years. Big deal. A few more prematurely randy elk.

From this, we are asked to envision doomsday as an inevitable outcome if we don't "act" (an action, if we're thinking in terms of Kyoto, that won't actually do much of anything). It is more logical, I think, to predict that the trend of climate change--increases and decreases in temperature--will continue.

Moreover, looking at the costs of heat and cold in the historical record, it also appears that heat is good in relative terms. Unfortunately, when Greenland was actually green, people weren't clever enough to get hysterical over it.