Since I cannot paste links just yet, go to the Wall Street Journal, and look up an article titled "No Need To Panic About Global Warming" that was posted just yesterday, January 27th.

Apologetic bump, but I just found this post from good ol' Phil Plait linked in my G+ feed.

Yeah, my apologies too, obaeyens and the forum generally for colluding with the derail. I guess it wasn't exactly a very serious thread to start with, and you could post it again if you dare! :D

No it was not intended as serious.

But it is actually interesting that people against conspiracy theories start to promote the exact same way as the conspiracy theorists would do without realizing that they became a conspiracy theorist in his field.

Wolf Bird, thank you kindly!

I'm pleased it just got moved and isn't apparently locked yet, although I'm not sure how the AGW, e-hem, "debate" can be rescued from the entrenched position we seem to have got to. I hope it can, though.

SmartyPantz, things have got a bit heated, so let me invite you to join me in discussing our opinions without insulting each other. I see you offered the view that you and TheGreatJuju might have to agree to disagree, which shows respect for different opinions, and I respect your right to hold your opinions.

If you're still into discussing this, I put the point to you again in a different way, because you seem to have misunderstood me. My point wasn't that business is evil or ambition equals avarice. My point was to invite you to consider the relative likelihood of these positions:

1. All but a handful of the thousands of climatologists, working in many different nations of the world, are selfishly whoring themselves to the global warming lie, and are so destitute without government grants that they have to make their whole career a sham, so that whoever is behind it can make money out of carbon offsetting and whatever else you think they're up to.

2. The long-established (hundreds of years old), rich and powerful, fossil-fuel production business has seeded the opposite lie, the hypothesis that you outline above (1).

If I've misrepresented those positions, clarify them by all means, but in considering this, I'd suggest we not forget that pretty much everything that sustains modern life on the planet comes from oil and coal and gas - not just fuel, but plastics and agricultural fertilizer - without which we could not have had the industrial revolution or become nearly 7 billion in number, and without which we're scratching our heads to know how to continue this level of consumption (although, as you note yourself, there are potential solutions). This makes the power and wealth of this lobby group considerable. It means that governments might be hard-pressed to win votes and try to change our oil addiction. The need to tighten our belts isn't a welcome message.

Furthermore, being a part of the industrial world, governments themselves are dependent on fossil fuels, in the national industries and services (like defense). We might expect that, with wars on several fronts, the US Government needs the oil to keep flowing, and indeed might favour wars that supply more of it.

The more energy produced, the cheaper it is, especially when you have abundant resources as we do. That is called supply and demand.

I'm amazed you can express this point, apparently ignoring the political realities of vast subsidies paid to oil and gas companies ("Fossil-fuel consumers worldwide received about six times more government subsidies than were given to the renewable-energy industry, according to the chief adviser to oil-importing nations."), and the debacle over extraction from tar sands, deeper and deeper off-sea drilling, etc., etc. Even without arguing about how much is left, surely you must accept that "abundant fossil fuels" can only be temporary (they're non-renewable), and that global population, wealth and energy consumption are all set to rise. There is room to debate when peak oil is or was, but simple mathematics means it's an absolute.

These points are really just background to the main question: which is more likely, that our political direction is being hijacked by a bunch of immoral PhD students bidding for funding from people who want to sell unwelcome windmills, or the guys pumping black gold out of a hole in the ground that built our very civilization?

Anyone who says "corporations operate within a culture of greed" has already demonstrated their own "selective ignorance" because they obviously demonstrated with that very statement that they have no clue as to how free market enterprise really works.

How does stating that corporations operate within a culture of greed tell you anything about what a person knows or does not know about economics on any scale? I'll answer for you: it doesn't. And you're oh-so-predictably ignoring that freedeanna never said what you attributed to him, which was my actual point.

…therefore believing that ambition is avarice.

Of course, again, nobody here said or implied anything of the sort, nor did freedeanna take a positive or negative stance regarding his observation. You're just attributing a position to him of your own making, and attacking it. That's called a straw-man fallacy. Of course, he might actually hold a negative position, though I doubt he confuses ambition with avarice. I don't know, and neither do you, yet you transparently pretend otherwise.

It's pretty clear that you can't defend your science-denial position and just want to change topics and insult people now. To Off-Topic we go, and I'm about this close > < to locking this pointless exercise with you.

…

Sorry, obaeyens. Your "loser" thread has been hijacked beyond salvaging, and it was kind of a multi-tiered effort.

Newsflash: Wanting to make a profit by providing the marketplace with goods and services that consumers actually want or need is not 'greed.'

Yep, all the oil industry's fault, and business is greed. ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz!!!! LOL!

He never said that. He said that corporations operate within a "culture of greed," and he is correct. He also offered no opinion on whether that is good or bad, but rather just stated a fact.

Yeah… Go join an occupy 'protest.' You will obviously fit right in.

Another insult.

Funny how the only retorts you people come up with are nothing but condescending drivel. Congratulations, you are the essence of what you hate.

Plenty of scientists have spoken up for your information. Here is just a short list;

You may also be interested to know, that the co-founder of Green Peace, Patrick Moore, is even calling the whole man made global warming theory is strictly political.

And look up a BBC documentary that was made in the 1970s called The Weather Machine while you are at it. Back then they were predicting a mini-iceage. Cooling, now warming? Which is it? You people can't have it both ways. Oh, but it is okay, because they were all scientists, right!?

At this point, we are looking at abject selective ignorance on your part. I don't suppose the fact that all the above claims have already been addressed in this very thread matters much to you. Ergo, little point in addressing them again.

Gotta say, I do think this utterly derailed topic has run its course. Considering a move to Off-Topic unless someone objects.

Consider this your warning.

Yeah… Go join an occupy 'protest.' You will obviously fit right in.

Funny how the only retorts you people come up with are nothing but condescending drivel. Congratulations, you are the essence of what you hate.

Plenty of scientists have spoken up for your information. Here is just a short list;

Professor Tim Ball, Dept. of Climatology, University of Winnipeg.
Prof. Nir Shaviv, Institute of Physics, University of Jerusalem.
Prof. Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
Prof. Phillip Stott, Dept. of Biogeography, University of London.
Dr. Roy Spencer, Weather Satellite Team Leader, NASA.
Prof. Patrick Michaels, Dept. of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia
Prof. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Dir. International Arctic Research Center.

You may also be interested to know, that the co-founder of Green Peace, Patrick Moore, is even calling the whole man made global warming theory is strictly political. No wonder he left Green Peace.

And look up a BBC documentary that was made in the 1970s called The Weather Machine while you are at it. Back then they were predicting a mini-iceage. Cooling, now warming? Which is it? You people can't have it both ways. Oh, but it is okay, because they were all scientists, right!?

And to answer one of your question, yes, actually I do tend to trust a study funded by the private sector far more than I do any study funded by government, since unlike the government, the private sector, i.e., 'big business', actually produces goods and services that people want and are willing to pay for. And, unlike government, the private sector actually creates wealth and generates revenue.

More bad logic. Who funds a given study is irrelevant to anything having to do with global warming. If the science is good and passes peer review, it gets into journals. That's the whole point of peer review…to have people with no interest in a given result reproduce your experiment and get consistent results. If that happens, it doesn't matter who funded it. And it just so happens that has happened with climate change. Average temperatures are rising, and this has been proven many times by scientists affiliated with all kinds of organizations, including universities with no relationship to any government. Average temperatures began to seriously rise in a way that coincides with the industrial age, and the release of large amounts of CO2 and CH4 into the atmosphere, as well as more CFCs, which breaks down ozone.

Have you even actually read any of the big climate change documents, many of which contain some great information from a number of scientists and institutions? The Copenhagen Report, which I linked? Any of the IPCC documents, which are available on their website? Any books, such as Spencer Weart's 'The Discovery of Global Warming'? How about the WorldWatch Institute's publications on the matter? Just asking. I have read many of these and am in the process of reading more for my class.

If you haven't noticed, global warming hasn't turned this into an Orwellian world. You can still buy gasoline. Go buy that big SUV with bad gas mileage if you want. Oil companies are still in business, we're still burning tons of coal and natural gas is a totally booming industry right now. And it's going to stay that way for a while. But governments have decided that they need to use regulation to try to combat this problem, because while it may not have ramifications today that are too serious, it very well could (and probably will) many years from now. I fail to see what the big problem is with government regulating industry so it doesn't get out of hand with more pollution - doesn't mean regulations will work, mind you, but businesses have been regulation before and they seem to do just fine. I can't say I trust industry to regulate itself to be a good corporate citizen. I think there's a balance to be had. However, I say that 100% as my opinion and nothing more. Point is, though, I fail to see this world as being anything even remotely comparable to the world of Orwell's 1984. So nice false comparison there.

As someone else said, sorry if the folks around here, myself included, don't like conspiracy theories and take issue with them, and feel compelled to debate when there is bad science and logic. Especially if you decide we're losers for taking the opposite stance. Maybe if you'd provide some good, real evidence instead of cherry picking some incidents of foul play there, or mischaracterizing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and what it actually means, you'd get somewhere. You've been asked a ton of times. So far, you've not provide anything any good and concrete, just a bunch of rants about politicians, cronyism and other interest groups. So far, no actual real science.

But if you want to agree to disagree, I'm fine with that.

notice how the threat of man made global warming doesn't stop OPEC nations from drilling and producing oil, even from drilling in sovereign US waters? Hmmm….

Yes, sadly.

Our government can stop that, but why don't they?

Well, you were the one wanting to follow the money.

I really think you should re-think your version of events: scientists, you say, who pretty much to a woman go into science to do worthy things, to make discoveries that save lives and help the world, become corrupted liars to get grants, and thus make up AGW at the behest of their masters … and yet somehow the whistle hasn't been blown. I won't say "nobody has said anything", because it could be that some scientist somewhere has claimed that - there's always one example. But if scientists were being corrupted and made to collude in a collosal scam like that, when one spoke up, they'd all speak up, surely? How is it kept secret? Illuminati mind control techniques?

Compare those scientists with the people who go into business (choosing my words carefully): amongst them will be a high proportion of people for whom making money is top priority, and business training reinforces that. They're in business to make profit, and there's a culture of normalising greed and corruption. Politicians, well, I think they're a mixed bag. Some start out idealists and others greedy: few remain idealists.

So just maybe the government doesn't stop people prospecting for oil and coal, despite the scientists advising that we need to stop, because the country has a large proportion of people who, like you, fear and detest being controlled and told what to do, and there's a vastly powerful fossil fuel business pulling as many strings as it can.

Notice the second anyone questions the theory of man's part in causing global warming, the natives get restless.

On these forums? Sure, blanket statements that don't tell the whole story are bound to have someone pointing something out, usually either asking for clarification or mentioning where errors lay within the statement.

In fact, the percentile [of CO2] is so small that it is laughable

You might want to watch some of the videos from this guy (and I don't even know if that's the best choice of video I could have linked to, he's done so many. Edit: this one might be better).

Or, you know, repeat that stat of 'anywhere from 9-26%' - it's not about how little CO2 there is in comparison to every other element and molecule in the atmosphere, it's how much there is of it in terms of molecules that actively help to heat the planet.

An analogy in much need of work is that there are so relatively few firearms on this planet compared to every other tool mankind has ever made, but their contribution towards the killing of humans is phenomenal.

You may want to pass that message along to the other drones on here who got their panties all up in a bunch

Pssst. They can read these messages. Tell them yourself.

Also do note, that I have said in this thread before, that we are probably going to have to end up agreeing to disagree since I will not change any of your minds, and none of you will change mine.

You can change our minds by providing clear and concise evidence for anything you claim, for starters. You can say 'follow the money' all you like, you can say 'we don't contribute as much as they'd have you believe', you can say whatever. I for one object to when claims are stated as fact without proving them to be fact.

And I also have mentioned that we are getting way off topic as well.

We are, but we all want the last word and are far too involved for any of us to lock the thread.

Notice the second anyone questions the theory of man's part in causing global warming, the natives get restless. You would think that I said something derogatory about Elvis Presley in The South.

None of the data that I have seen backs up that C02 increases causes temperature rises. In fact, what I have seen proves the opposite.

Why would I ask anyone to explain those questions I posed? Simple; I know they don't want to answer the question because it shoots a hole in the man made global warming theory.

Second, thanks for making my argument for me. In order for any experiment to be declared a success, the experiment must be duplicated and produce the same results. Hence, the other reason I posed those questions. The experiment that concludes that man contributes significantly to global warming, has not even been successful once. In fact, the percentile is so small that it is laughable, especially given how the ocean is truly the biggest C02 producer, and there is also the utter BS that C02 is a 'pollutant.'

Third, I agree with your last sentence, lets get back to the other swindle known as 2012. You may want to pass that message along to the other drones on here who got their panties all up in a bunch simply because they obviously took umbrage to one sentence on my original post that clearly states that I do not accept dirty politics disguised as science as gospel.

And that would be because what I take umbrage to, is when anybody wants to legislate their morality on to me, or anyone else for that matter, based on their own personal beliefs and theories.

(Note: by using the words 'beliefs' and 'theories', I am giving these politicians way too much credit of having any character at all.)

The biggest offenders are the drones pushing the idea that global warming is man made down our collective throats. To me, they are no better than the morons that make up the religious right in that respect.

Also do note, that I have said in this thread before, that we are probably going to have to end up agreeing to disagree since I will not change any of your minds, and none of you will change mine.

And I also have mentioned that we are getting way off topic as well.

When I dared go against the golden calf of man made global warming, now that you both are resorting to underhanded insults.

This is conspiracy hoaxers thinking.
Snap out of it.

1. If the climate is warming

Which it is. The fact that you got cold doesn't alter the year by year increase of average temperature.

How much of the Earth’s atmosphere actually consists of C02?

0.03% by volume. That's 3/100s.

Of the gases directly concerned with climate change (greenhouse gas), how much consists of CO2? Anywhere from 9-26%. Second only to Water vapour.

2. Explain …
3. Would you also care to explain …
4. Would you also care to explain …

Why?

Again, keep in mind that these warming and cooling trends all occurred well before there were such a thing as oil refineries, nuclear power plants, factories, and those damn SUVs?

Ah, that's why, because you want an explanation of how man could not possibly be involved in those events, and so cannot possibly be involved in this recent trend either.

While 'global warming' and 'climate change' are used fairly synonymously, 'change' is the important factor here. The data is clear in that there is a change against the norm, that change is upward, towards warmer temperatures. The data similarly suggests that one of the biggest factors in this upward trend is the result of mankind in one form or another.

Nobody here has flat out said that only man is to blame, and you've even listed ten things man does which contributes to climate change, despite considering it's severity a non-issue, a hoax, whatever.

So what then caused it? Was it man's activity, or C02 (the content of which was actually allot higher then than it is now) from cow farts?

That'd be methane from cow farts, and by the sheer numbers, a little over 2 billion people have the same gut flora that produce methane, so they too are contributing, little by little, to the effect.

Of course, this isn't a talking point, the issue isn't as black and white as blaming mankind or not mankind, as these guys have been writing here. Mankind is a contributing factor, this isn't is dispute (after all, you listed ten things remember…).

What is in dispute is how much we are a contributing factor. That's the crux of your argument it seems, and I don't think I need to mention it's way beyond what we tend to discuss on 2012hoax.

If you want to worship at the alter of a false idol, that is your God given right to do so. But when you expect me to bow down to your idol, don't be surprised when I exercise my first amendment right to tell you to stick your golden calf up your ass.

If you want to call crony politics science, go ahead, have fun with it. You are no better than Al Gore. But do not get mad at me because I do not want to live in your Orwellian world.

You want facts that it is all political?

If you are too lazy to open a history book and read up on the Bolshevik Revolution, and Soviet propaganda, I suggest you start by looking up an organization called the Association of Bay Area Governments, (ABAG dot ORG) and look at how they are using this so-called science to try to tell us how to live.

Think it is just limited to the SF Bay Area? Guess again. I am sure that if you look, you will find similar organizations in your area too. In fact, I know you will.

Also, while you are at it, look up the counter group to ABAG that is fighting them tooth and nail, SF Bay 912 Project, and see what they have to say about these environmental 'studies.'

And putting the politics of it all aside; Ask yourself the following:

1. If the climate is warming, (which I cannot see as we have had some of the coldest over night lows here in the Bay Area in a long time, and recently had freeze warnings in portions of the south bay [the 'Silicon Valley'], and the north bay just a few short weeks ago). But if climate change is truly due to man’s activity, what is that argument based upon?

C02, right?

How much of the Earth’s atmosphere actually consists of C02?

Reality check: One 3,500th of 1%. Yeah… That is just enough to cause noticeable climate shifts in our life time. Yeah, right. (sarcasm.)

2. Explain the end of one of the coldest periods in history going back to the 1400s, approximately 350 years before the industrial revolution.

3. Would you also care to explain the ‘Medieval Warm Period” (13th Century A.D.) which occurred roughly 600 years before the industrial revolution, and actually produced warmer temperatures that what we are experiencing today?

4. Would you also care to explain how the 'Medieval Warm Period' gave way to a colder period 200 years later?

Again, keep in mind that these warming and cooling trends all occurred well before there were such a thing as oil refineries, nuclear power plants, factories, and those damn SUVs? So what then caused it? Was it man's activity, or C02 (the content of which was actually allot higher then than it is now) from cow farts?

And to answer one of your question, yes, actually I do tend to trust a study funded by the private sector far more than I do any study funded by government, since unlike the government, the private sector, i.e., 'big business', actually produces goods and services that people want and are willing to pay for. And, unlike government, the private sector actually creates wealth and generates revenue.

I guess just for that, someone here will call me a '1%'er.' Go ahead, I would be honored if you did since I hate those worthless fleabags that make up 'Occupy Wall Street.'

That the so-called 'scientists' that seem to promote man made global warming, are breaking one of the cardinal rules of science by declaring the debate 'over.' That is why I call them "so-called Scientist."/

So since probably about 99% of scientists accept that evolution is real, should we call them all 'so-called scientists' too since they don't debate about whether evolution is real? Just asking. Climate scientists debate plenty…they just debate about the effects, timeline, magnitude, etc. of AGW. Debate is not 'over'.

You continue to rant about politics, follow the money, and generally sound like a conspiracy theorist. So far, you haven't presented an iota of legitimate evidence that AGW does not have a human-caused component. Look again at Juju's link, fallacy of relevance, before you continue to rant about politics and money.

I presented some real basic science in support of global warming. You totally failed to refute it and just simply threw a big straw man at me. How about if you present some scientific evidence, with a citation in support of your position?

What would happen then if there was no sun? Would the temperature here on earth not drop below freezing which would kill all life on this planet as we know it!?

Nice straw man, and not just this part, but really the entire post. No where in my post did I say the sun has nothing to do with it, I said the sun is not the only factor and there's evidence that shows that.

Nowhere did I say anything about people not going to school, not eating and dying young to stop climate change. I agree with Juju, you are completely failing to distinguish absurd alarmism and legitimate science and activism.

Have you ever heard of a film called Global Warming Swindle?

You are starting to sound more and more like a conspiracy theorists.
Maybe stop, reread your posts and compare this with what conspiracy do.

Let me put it to you this way; does anybody here truly believe that if man made global warming is real,

Yes. That is where the science points to.
The claims of the AGW are as crazy as the 2012 hoax.

that buying 'carbon offset credits' is really going to help solve the problem?

No. It is being misused as a money scam.

And interesting how you admit that Al Gore is no scientist, and yet here he is out trumpeting this crap about man made global warming as if it were gospel.

Yes Al Gore is making up crap. I think he used global warming as a tool to get more votes and media attention. His video is completely worthless. It is just sheer luck that he happened to have a lucky guess about climate change.

1. I cite these bonehead politicians, because they are the ones using these 'studies' to pass legislation that over regulate our lives. And they are making sure the grant money only goes to those that support their positions. You think that that has never been done before? Do you remember the Soviet Union? Ever hear of a place called Cuba, or China?

Then go to a political forum and rant about "bonehead politicians." You've still provided not one shred of evidence that mainstream climate science is flawed.

2. The more energy produced, the cheaper it is, especially when you have abundant resources as we do. That is called supply and demand. It also would create more jobs.

But you said you had an "easy fix." What's stopping you? Oh, that's a right, it's an intercontinental conspiracy….

3. You are the one making a federal case about my comment above. If you do not agree that man made global warming is a fraud, fine, cool. You could have just ignored my comment and avoided this whole fiasco. I see it as a hoax, and therefore I added it to my list. End of story.

My initial response to you:

Then I suppose the ninetieth percentile of climate scientists are "losers."

There really isn't much belief required at this point. I don't think anybody says humans are the only cause of climate change, but that we are collectively a significant contributor."

How is that making a "federal case" out of your comment? The conversation has since ballooned, sure, because you keep invoking bogus canard after canard, blind to the flaws in your own thinking but nonetheless fully devoted to your cause. Huzzah, comrade.

4. Right now Nuclear energy is only 20%, but that is why you build more nuclear plants. Convincing people how that is good will not be easy, given all the misplaced fear people have of them.

Oh, so it isn't such an "easy fix" after all. Bummer.

5. Natural gas, and even more coal power plants would be a good thing too. Why are we not doing it, because we keep listing to hippie 'environmentalists' that only became activists pushing man made global warming because they are unemployable.

More ad hom. I almost expect it now. Yet again, no manner of activism or political maneuvering has anything to do with the veracity of climate science. It is correct or incorrect independent of my acceptance or your conspiracy theories. Evidence at this time overwhelmingly suggests that yes, climate change is real, and human activity is a major contributor.

6. Back to the politicians. Why isn't the Keystone pipeline being built which would greatly lower the cost of gasoline and energy in the US? Again, because Obama panders to the same loser environmentalists that push this man made global warming crap down the public's throat. (notice how the threat of man made global warming doesn't stop OPEC nations from drilling and producing oil, even from drilling in sovereign US waters? Hmmm….

Let's assume all of that is accurate. What does it have to do with whether mainstream climate science is correct? Absolutely nothing, of course.

Our over dependence on foreign oil is why our energy prices are so high.

One of the few things you've said that is actually correct.

Sorry to tell you, but man made global warming is just dirty crony politics disguised as 'science.' And you like allot of other good, decent and well meaning people fell for it.

On the contrary, it seems you've been duped by a very tiny but very loud minority of industry puppets. And I repeat yet again, you haven't offered a shred of evidence against mainstream climate science beyond your opinion that the scientists are all shills and liars. Sorry, but we tend to be skeptical of conspiracy theories around here.

Like I said, this guy was just one of the few stupid enough to actually get himself caught. He paid $90 (I think) for his PHD.

So, do you think a guy who got a PhD from a diploma mill is representative of climate scientists in general? Why do you think scientists who accept climate change are government lackeys, but you accept anything offered by industry lackeys on the other side? The Heartland Institute gets funding from somewhere, after all. You are a portrait of cognitive dissonance.

And interesting how you admit that Al Gore is no scientist, and yet here he is out trumpeting this crap about man made global warming as if it were gospel.

I didn't have to "admit" anything. I despise Al Gore and always have. His [in]famous book is flawed on average, but not completely and utterly wrong, either. In any case, my views on climate don't come from Al Gore, and I sincerely doubt that any climate scientists were taught by him.

Look, we are going to have to eventually agree to disagree here. But I do have to say here and now, that if you want to get to the bottom of any conspiracy theory, i.e. man made global warming, 2012, etc., there is only one way to do it; Follow the money.

The problem is that climate change is real, and human beings are most likely a significant factor in this phenomenon. If you have evidence suggesting otherwise, in contrast to decades of progress, now would be a good time to present it for peer-review, as opposed to making baseless accusations on this board that an entire branch of science is a giant conspiracy. That's the irony here, man. You're the one with the conspiracy theory, throwing critical thinking out the window in search of some simplistic explanation that fits your beliefs. Climate science is sound and well-documented. All you've put forth here is your personal belief that over 90% of climate scientists are corrupt liars.

does anybody here truly believe that if man made global warming is real, that buying 'carbon offset credits' is really going to help solve the problem?

Perhaps not, but that has nothing to do with the veracity of mainstream climate science.

2. The more energy produced, the cheaper it is, especially when you have abundant resources as we do. That is called supply and demand. It also would create more jobs.

3. You are the one making a federal case about my comment above. If you do not agree that man made global warming is a fraud, fine, cool. You could have just ignored my comment and avoided this whole fiasco. I see it as a hoax, and therefore I added it to my list. End of story.

4. Right now Nuclear energy is only 20%, but that is why you build more nuclear plants. Convincing people how that is good will not be easy, given all the misplaced fear people have of them.

5. Natural gas, and even more coal power plants would be a good thing too. Why are we not doing it, because we keep listing to hippie 'environmentalists' that only became activists pushing man made global warming because they are unemployable.

6. Back to the politicians. Why isn't the Keystone pipeline being built which would greatly lower the cost of gasoline and energy in the US? Again, because Obama panders to the same loser environmentalists that push this man made global warming crap down the public's throat. (notice how the threat of man made global warming doesn't stop OPEC nations from drilling and producing oil, even from drilling in sovereign US waters? Hmmm….

Our government can stop that, but why don't they? Because they know better than anybody that man made global warming is total BS. Our over dependence on foreign oil is why our energy prices are so high. And high energy costs means more revenue collected though all of the taxes associated with it.

Sorry to tell you, but man made global warming is just dirty crony politics disguised as 'science.' And you like allot of other good, decent and well meaning people fell for it.

Try 50% and shrinking. The scientific community is still pretty divided over this.

Nope.

Some actually believe we are headed for a cooling pattern.

How many is "some?"

Warming? Cooling? Neither? Who is right? Only time will tell.

It's warming, with no signs of going the other way. Time has already told us.

But the saying that man causes any of it…. That is just ridiculous!

Non-argument.

With or without our technology, whether or not mankind exists, the earth will continue to go through its own cycles no matter what.

With or without cities below sea level, whether cities even exist, the earth will continue to produce hurricanes and floods, no matter what.

Have you ever heard of a film called Global Warming Swindle?

The 'political shenanigans' here in CA are no different than what is happening in DC with agencies like the EPA, (that should be abolished, BTW, just as CARB should be abolished here.)

Like I said, this guy was just one of the few stupid enough to actually get himself caught. He paid $90 (I think) for his PHD.

And interesting how you admit that Al Gore is no scientist, and yet here he is out trumpeting this crap about man made global warming as if it were gospel.

Look, we are going to have to eventually agree to disagree here. But I do have to say here and now, that if you want to get to the bottom of any conspiracy theory, i.e. man made global warming, 2012, etc., there is only one way to do it; Follow the money.

And yes, there is allot of money being made from the scam called man made global warming. Let me put it to you this way; does anybody here truly believe that if man made global warming is real, that buying 'carbon offset credits' is really going to help solve the problem?

Energy consumption? That is an easy fix, build more nuclear power plants, and reprocess the spent nuclear fuel rods in Yucca Mountain and send it to existing power plants. Energy 'problem' solved.

More nuclear power would help, certainly, but it presently comprises only about 20% of production in the United States. If you have a plan to convince enough investors to remedy that situation, I have to wonder why you're wasting time posting climate change denial drivel on this forum.

Simply put, there is no energy problem,

Whether there is a "problem" per se or not, it remains beneficial for most people financially to consume less energy. Less consumption = less demand = lower greenhouse emissions. Again, I'm well aware that this demands a huge number of participants in order to have even a modest effect, and I'm not particularly confident in humanity's willingness to follow this approach short of smarter technology. And, really, that's fine. Using the most efficient source of energy at your disposal is one thing. Denying the repercussions of doing so on a collective scale is just delusional.

…there is a regulation problem halting the production of energy.

Maybe so, but you can make your case to this effect somewhere else.

Save that speech for the ones that are actually guilty of just that, like Obama, Al Gore, and our idiot of a Governor out here in CA, Jerry "Moonbeam" (AKA, Jim Jones' good buddy) Brown.

Funny that you keep citing politicians, but your immense knowledge of the actual science behind climate change fails to show in any of your posts.

Well, that is unless you like being over charged and over taxed for electricity. The good luck to you.

You continue to miss something.

Warming? Cooling? Neither? Who is right? Only time will tell.

But the saying that man causes any of it…. That is just ridiculous!

With or without our technology, whether or not mankind exists, the earth will continue to go through its own cycles no matter what.

That the so-called 'scientists' that seem to promote man made global warming, are breaking one of the cardinal rules of science by declaring the debate 'over.' That is why I call them "so-called Scientist."

The debate isn't over. We have a problem that needs to be solved, and it still isn't clear what long-term effects future generations might have to deal with. If you're referring to any debate over whether climate change is real, that was indeed over a long time ago.

Usually when one does that, they are trying to protect something. Oh yeah, their free Government grant money.

I think you missed something.

And scientists have never been wrong, nor has the 'scientific community' ever changed their position on anything?

Of course. Do we have any reason to think the mainstream position on climate change (i.e. that it's real and that humans are a major factor) is wrong? Nope. If that changes, it will be by way of the same science that brought us to this point — because science, though imperfect, works.

And just to 'stay on topic' here. Below I am pasting an article which you can look up on your own from the Heartland Institute, on environmental laws passed here in California by the Cal EPA. Sadly, this fraud of a scientist whose 'studies' have actually effected legislation, Hien Tran, is only the tip of the iceberg, and one of the few to actually be stupid enough to actually get caught.

I suppose I should note here that epidemiology is not climate science. In any event, political shenanigans in the state of California have nothing to do with whether anthropogenic climate change is really a problem. See the "Big Picture" link in Diesel's post above. As much sympathy as I'd like to have for the allegedly libertarian-minded Heartland Institute, it has little to do with the issue at hand, and you continue to trip over your own bias.

"stemming from an inability to differentiate alarmism, activism and science."

Save that speech for the ones that are actually guilty of just that, like Obama, Al Gore, and our idiot of a Governor out here in CA, Jerry "Moonbeam" (AKA, Jim Jones' good buddy) Brown.

Well, that is unless you like being over charged and over taxed for electricity. The good luck to you.

Usually when one does that, they are trying to protect something. Oh yeah, their free Government grant money.

And scientists have never been wrong, nor has the 'scientific community' ever changed their position on anything?

And just to 'stay on topic' here. Below I am pasting an article which you can look up on your own from the Heartland Institute, on environmental laws passed here in California by the Cal EPA. Sadly, this fraud of a scientist whose 'studies' have actually effected legislation, Hien Tran, is only the tip of the iceberg, and one of the few to actually be stupid enough to actually get caught.

___

California Ignores Scientific Protests, Passes New Diesel Regulations
John Dale Dunn, M.D., J.D. –
January 1, 2009

Claiming their action will save thousands of Californians’ lives and reduce health care expenditures, the California Air Resources Board has imposed new emission regulations on diesel trucks despite objections from an array of experts about the regulatory process and the credibility of the science.

Vigorous protests of the new regulations and the claims of benefits were submitted by Dr. James Enstrom of UCLA and others, amounting to more than 100 pages of written criticisms of the CARB scientific process and the studies that CARB claimed showed thousands of deaths from diesel small particles.

The year-long process of development of the new regulations resulted in some very revealing public commentary, accusations of complicity in the scientific review process, and even misconduct by CARB officials.

In the biggest scandal, opposition scientists found the lead author of the key study by CARB had faked his Ph.D. and lacked expertise in air pollution research. In addition, CARB hired reviewers to review their own papers, naturally resulting in approval of the scientific studies that claimed the death and health effects.

Dr. Henry Miller, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University, in a May 27, 2008 essay in The Washington Times, declared the new regulations, called the “Goods Movement Emission Reduction Plan” (GMERP), an overreach by CARB based on bad science that will drive business out of California.

Miller cited a large and detailed 2005 study by Enstrom, who has a real Ph.D. from Stanford and a Masters in Public Health from his current university, UCLA. Enstrom found no death effect in the period between 1983 and 2002 from fine particulate matter in the air.

In any fair analysis of science, such a study disproves the claims of CARB of thousands of deaths. Miller pointed out the harm to the California economy created by the new CARB rules will induce additional deaths due to the “income effect.” Miller, a physician and public health researcher, relates that it is well-established that premature deaths come to people suffering economic hardship and deprivation.

In a valiant effort to push back on the CARB diesel regulations, Enstrom and others provided commentary and analysis in 2008 that showed the CARB scientific process was poisoned with bias and insider dealing, including a review panel that was clearly not objective and was set up to give CARB what it wanted.

During the effort to urge CARB to reconsider the bad effects for little benefit, the Enstrom group found out the lead author for CARB on the study, Hien Tran, in fact did not have the Ph.D. claimed by CARB in its major study of air pollution and that he had authored no significant studies in air pollution toxicology.

On December 10, 2008, in a last effort to change CARB votes and ask for reconsideration of the new regulations with a more disciplined peer review and scientific process, Enstrom authored a letter to CARB reminding the board of the public comments submitted already by many distinguished scientists.

Enstrom noted CARB had not adequately responded to the many criticisms in the public comments raising process and evidentiary questions and refutations of the CARB claims of thousands of deaths. Submitters included Joel Schwartz from the American Enterprise Institute, Joseph Suchecki of the Engine Manufacturers Association, Dr. Suresh Moolgavkar, a prominent and nationally known epidemiologist, Dr. Fred Lipfert, also a national figure in public health, and Dr. John Dunn (the author of this essay), a 30-plus-year epidemiologist from UCLA.

They all asserted the CARB death projections were the product of an excessive zeal at CARB and unacceptably weak research on current California air pollution health effects. Moreover, the commentators pointed out the GMERP rules would impose new regulatory and economic burdens on industry and business that would result in hardship for the consuming public and harm the failing and frail California economy.

The public commentary, mostly from scientists and more than 140 pages, was negative, with the expected supportive letters from environmental organizations.

In his December 10 letter, Enstrom pointed out CARB’s disregard of public scientific commentary, the biased nature of the CARB consultants, lack of scientific qualifications of CARB lead author Hien Tran, and reasons why CARB should reconstitute its review process and committee members and restudy its scientific reports and projections of deaths.

In another December 2008 letter to CARB board members, Enstrom, Anthony Fucaloro, a 35-year chemist from Claremont McKenna University, Matt Malkan, a 25-year astrophysicist from UCLA, and Robert Phalen, a 35-year air pollution toxicologist from UC Irvine, pointed out their concerns:

Would you then care to explain how the last ice age ended without factories, oil refineries and SUVs to cause global warming?

This "argument" is so tiresome, because it merely seeks to suggest that past climate changes exclude the possibility of anthropogenic climate change, and that's simply ridiculous. By such reasoning, humans can't open dams and cause flooding because, well, clearly flooding is a natural event.

Climate changes when relevant factors in the environment cause it to.

How do you also explain, that in 1975, allot of these same scientists were going on and on about a mini ice age, and now suddenly it is global warming!?

I get the feeling there is no climate change denial canard you aren't poised to offer. That simply isn't what happened.

There is no difference between the global warming alarmists like Al Gore, and the tin foil hat wearing tards that go on and on about 2012, or the tards that went on and on about Y2K.

Al Gore is not a climate scientist. Of course, that probably doesn't matter to you, since you've already decided that over ninety percent of climate scientists are frauds or losers.

If you people are really so concerned about man made global warming, here are some suggestions for you. That is, if you actually follow the 'logic' of the man made global warming proponents:

1. Stop breathing - When you exhale you release carbon dioxide.

2. Don't drive - We all know how bad driving is. (and the deadbeat city 'workers' also need their inflated paychecks and pensions, after all. So we must keep the local MTAs afloat.)

3. Don't live in a house/apartment/condo or any building that uses gas or electricity - Homes produce 2-3 times as much carbon as cars.

4. Don't wear shoes or any sort of clothing produced in a factory. Grow a cotton field and make your own clothes by hand.

5. Quit school - Those school buildings produce more carbon in a year then you do in 20 years.

6. Eat meat raw - Whether you're using gas or electric both produce carbon dioxide. (Don't mind the E coli that you will get though.)

7. Turn off your monitor and computer because it uses electricity - You hypocrite. Don't you know how bad those power plants are for the planet!?

8. Don't use toilets; instead, be sure to piss or shit in your back yard.- The water to your house is cleaned and sent to your house using pumps that use electricity.

9. Stop exercising - Increasing your heart rate increases the amount of oxygen you take in and turn into carbon dioxide therefore increasing you 'carbon footprint.'

10. Die - Dying younger means you will do all of the above less. Living one year less means you will save the earth 8.4 tons of carbon dioxide every year you're not here!

Now perhaps do you see the lunacy of the man made global warming brigade?

I am saying that those 'scientists' are frauds that are only interested in government grants. Which of course makes them no better than all of the 2012 doomsdayers.

Follow the money. More specifically, the government grant money. It is a political scam, and not exactly a new one either.

So … you invent a conspiracy theory that conforms to your beliefs, as opposed to actually addressing the science itself. Surely I don't need to point out the irony.

Logically speaking, even if one were to accept your claims that climate scientists are driven by money and their tax-hungry masters, that still would not be an argument against mainstream climate science. See fallacy of relevance.

The bottom line here is this; anyone that thinks that they can either save or destroy the world is a tard.

No climate model depends on any one producer of greenhouse gas. Rather, such models must incorporate everyone. Collectively, humans can (and do) have a profound effect on the environment.

If anything causes global warming, it is the sun

While the Sun certainly affects climate, decreasing solar activity in recent decades does not correlate well with increasing temperatures, in the context of that particular claim.

Here I'd just like to back up and consider that article you referred to. First of all, it is an opinion piece in a financial publication. One is left to wonder why, sans conspiracy theories, it didn't show up in one of these instead.

Secondly, of the 16 scientists listed, only 5 appear to have worked directly in climate science. This is wholly unsurprising, as the number of scientists in general accepting a particular position is likely to be lower than the number of scientists from that particular field who accept it. For example, with comparable sample sizes you are likely to find more evolution deniers among mathematicians and automotive engineers than among biologists.

Thirdly, as noted above, whether this or that scientist is motivated by X, Y or Z has nothing to do with the actual science of climate change.

What I find so bizarre is your willingness to accuse climate scientists of whoring themselves out to governments, and you call them "crackerjack box PhDs" as if it's an indisputable fact, yet you've apparently never even considered the guys on the other side, who are in the pocket of big business. <— See what I did there?

Human bias is everywhere, in everything. That's why we depend on science and peer-review to solve problems.

You haven't posted one thing that even resembles an argument.

Hasn't the earth gone through several cooling and warming periods long before the industrial revolution?

How do you also explain, that in 1975, allot of these same scientists were going on and on about a mini ice age, and now suddenly it is global warming!?

I have said it before, and apparently it bares repeating. There is no difference between the global warming alarmists like Al Gore, and the tin foil hat wearing tards that go on and on about 2012, or the tards that went on and on about Y2K.

The only difference between them, is that one side is better funded, (thanks to government grants), and therefore their conspiracy theory has had a longer shelf life than the garden variety of the tinfoil hat society.

I'm taking a class on Climate Change right now. Climate change proponents have met the burden of proof for their claims about global warming, and many measurable trends from the past several decades have been going in directions consistent with a warming climate. For example…an overall warming climate will lead to warmer winters and warmer nights. Winter and night is a time when there is less sunlight in a given location, so you can't blame the sun alone for that.

From page 14 of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference Report:

winters are warming more rapidly than summers, and overnight minimum temperatures have warmed more rapidly than the daytime maxima – exactly the opposite of what would be the case if the sun were causing the warming. /

Sorry, but the 'the sun alone is causing it' theory falls apart under the weight of this trend. And that's just one example.

If you're not going to put the blame on humans, why are you putting it on our Sun? Distant stars had to violently die and spew their innards into interstellar space just so our solar system would have the raw ingredients to produce a star, the planets that orbit it, and every tiny little insignificant detail about them (that'd be you and I).

It's not the carbon dioxide bellowing out of our cars or factories to blame, noooo - it's those bloody stars that produced carbon and oxygen atoms in the first place. And they don't even have the balls to be around when it all kicks off.

These scientists want the grant money, and they know that in order to get it, they have to tow the line that the politicians want.

It has nothing to do with climate change, it is all about taxes and regulations to generate more revenue because they are broke and desperate.

The bottom line here is this; anyone that thinks that they can either save or destroy the world is a tard. If anything causes global warming, it is the sun, (no sarcasm intended), and not man, not factories, oil refineries, or even SUVs.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture.html

Fraud, loser; same thing, just a waste of space either way you cut it.

The politicians love to give the grants to those cracker jack box PHDs because that means more justification for 'carbon taxes' and the like that do nothing but extract wealth from the economy so that they can buy more votes from deadbeat losers.

Since I cannot paste links just yet, go to the Wall Street Journal, and look up an article titled "No Need To Panic About Global Warming" that was posted just yesterday, January 27th.

You know you are a loser when you believe in man made global warming.

There really isn't much belief required at this point. I don't think anybody says humans are the only cause of climate change, but that we are collectively a significant contributor.

You know you are a loser when you preach doomsday crap acting like you have a monopoly on the truth.

You know you are a loser when you actually are retarded enough to believe that you will actually survive the end of the world.

You know you are a loser when you ask people if they are ready for the end. (my personal fave. LOL!)

You know you are a loser when you believe anything on Yahoo News.

You know you are a loser when you when you blindly jump from one doomsday theory to another no matter how many of them have been proven wrong time and time again.

You know you are a loser when you spend every vacation at Rachel, NV in order to scope out Area 51 and hopefully catch footage of a real UFO.

You know you are a loser when you listen to Coast To Coast AM religiously.

You know you are a loser when you listen to Alex Jones religiously.

You know you are a loser when you think that 9/11 was an inside job.

You know you are a loser when you believe in man made global warming.

You know you are a loser when you think that Hurricane Katrina was caused by Halliburton in order to eliminate black people.

You know you are a loser when you think that Jews run the world.

You know you are a loser when you actually think that the Blair Witch Project was a real documentary.

You know you are a loser when you actually think that the Davinci Code was anything other than pure fiction solely for the purpose of entertainment.

You know you are a loser when your sole mission in life is to become a youtube sensation.

You know you are a loser when you believe anything some tards on Youtube say.

You know you are a loser when you buy alien urine on Ebay.

You know you are a loser when you are actually stupid enough to believe that there is really such a thing as 'earthquake weather.'

You know you are a loser when you think that aliens are using the fillings in your teeth to transmit signals.

You know you are a loser when you think that aliens built the pyramids.

You know you are a loser when you actually think that buying gold will save your assets should the currency market ever collapse.

You know you are a loser when you are obsessed with the Illuminate, aka The Bohemian Grove.

You know you are a loser when you actually call NASA asking questions about 'the arc', (just like in the movie 2012.) and what they are doing about the coming apocalypse when they tell you that "there is no arc." (Tee hee, This actually was happening. Back in 2010, NASA was actually getting flooded with phone calls from tards that saw the movie and believe all the end time nonsense.)

You know you are a loser when you think footage you took of a hubcap spinning from a clothesline is going to make you in to an overnight millionaire once you upload it to Youtube. (LOL. I actually once knew someone that tried just that, and sadly, even they were convinced that what they had was real UFO footage.)

And…. You know you are a loser when you live in a trailer and smell like a littler box and yet think you are some kind of 'babe magnet.' (I actually worked with someone like that, and not suprisingly, he was a doomsdayer.)

Now your turn to add more "You know you are a loser when you …"