I understand that you believe global warming is a hoax. Obama, and the scientific consensus he bases his belief upon, understand global warming is a reality.

So he's not suggesting the country and world go green for the sake of being green, he sees it as an essential and inevitable thing, in which case the nation that wins that technology race will indeed be the leader of the new economy.

It's like switching from wax to oil to electricity for lighting your home. Not everyone was on board, but it was reality. The USA sold the world a lot of goods based upon that reality.

And that doesn't even begin to address the dishonesty of your claim that Obama wants "exclusively" green energy, while ignoring existing technology.

If you have to ignore and distort to make a point, you might not be on to something good.

Jim, we don't believe global warming is a hoax, we believe MAN MADE global warming is a hoax.

During the life of Earth there were approximately 6 ice ages. Present global warming began 18,000 years ago as we started leaving the Pleistocene Ice Age. The theory that man-made pollution and/or CO2 are responsible for global warming is not supported by fact and there is no scientific proof.

Damaging the economy in an attempt to solve a problem, that is only a theory, is core stupidity.

The problem Rich is that the people who do this stuff for a living do not agree with you.

Think for a bit about how exactly scientists from around the world could possibly go about coordinating a hoax like this, and then ask why in the world they would do so, you'll end up with quite an impossible story.

Ignoring problems does not make them go away.

Jim, you evidently do not follow this too much. Many scientists agree that man made global warming is a hoax. I suggest you study this issue more and report back with your findings.

Right back at you Rick. I'd suggest you read up on what the guys who work for unbiased places like NASA, ESA, NCAR etc say rather than taking the word of guys who are either being paid by oil and coal companies, or, who have degrees in science but do not work in the field.

BTW, you could just as easily be arguing against evolution with your response to me, and you'd be just as correct. Thanks for being civil about it though.

Your refusal to research the matter, and using methods of the left to discredit others with different opinions, illustrates to me that I would be wasting time with further discussion.

Save yourself embarrassment by researching this matter more first by visiting www.globalwarmingheartland.org, then you can continue from there.

Hopefully CY will post some information for you.

A closed mind is a terrible waste.

Goodnight!

Um yeah, the link you gave is an industry site with financial connections to Exxon. You offer the right advice, now you just need to take it.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41

The problem Rich is that the people who do this stuff for a living do not agree with you.

The problem is, Jim, that people who do this for a living disagree with AGW (please try to the label correct) and know that the hypothesis is far from proven. Even more, much of the so-called proof for AGW has been refuted. Some, as the work from Hansen at NASA, has been shown to be literally scientific misconduct. See the recent refutation of the Mann Hockey Stick (and the scientific misconduct surrounding that part of the hoax) for greater understanding.

Even further, none of the nostrums promoted by Obama and his merry gang of crooks in DC will even reduce CO2 by anywhere near enough--according to their own computer models. It will, however, enrichen the government and their favored cronies.

Links to the people who do this for a living who do not say there has been, and will be warming due to co2 in the atmosphere that was of human origin.

Not people in the field publishing critiques of this or that specific finding -- that's how science works -- but people in the field stating AGW(if it makes you happier) -- is a hoax.

I have no problem getting my gas from Exxon, I refuse to get my science from them, thanks.

History has proven that "scientific consensus" and "reality" frequently only tenuously correlated.

Real scientists (I am one) understand that man doesn't know squat about how this planet or universe really work.

Please, scientific consensus certainly gets refined as time goes by but it's a joke to claim that's the same thing as the consensus being only tenuously correlated to reality. Newton didn't have a clue about Relativity, but he his theory of gravity was certainly correlated to reality.

I'd love to know what field you work in PA to have a better understanding of what you do for a living but think is based upon squat.

And again, there is a world of difference between saying "everything is not precisely understood" and claiming nothing is known, and claiming scientists and the government are engaged in some huge hoax.

Jim:

AGW is a hoax, period.

There is no actual, empirical, evidence to support the contention that man has contributed, in any meaningful sense, to warming, period.

The planet has not warmed since 1998 despite an increase in atmospheric carbon concentration over the past decade. (Which actually, demonstrably, trails temp increases, so unless you have an interesting quantum theory of AGW, then atmospheric carbon increases don't even have a correlative relationship to carbon increase let alone a causative one.)

The sun has been unusually quiet for quite some time and, lo and behold, the temperatue, on Earth, has actually gone down.

The temp increases on Earth were actually mirrored in other parts of the solar system. (So unless carbon production (which, again, trails temp increases) was affecting temps on Mars, that's another piece of actual, empirical, evidence that can be cited against AGW.)

Most importantly, the single most important piece of evidence supporting AGW has recently been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked by the actual scientists you seem to think support the theory. (That would be the Hockey Stick (that you no longer hear anything about because a. temps have dropped off in the past decade and b. because it's a bald-faced lie built on skewed, cherry-picked, data.)

I could go on and on and on and on about how much of a fraud this 'theory' is but why bother, right? No matter hwo much actual evidence is presented to people like you, your little cult will not go quietly into the long, dark, night to join the global cooling 'scare' of the 70s and, upon a time, Malthusian-esque, pseudo-scientific 'theories' of over-population, eugenics, and every other nonsense-based 'science' that leftists have a long, bloody, history has supported in direct opposition to readily-available, factual, knowledge. What will be fun for yo, however, is when the edifice finally does come crashing down completely (and it will like all of its idiotic forebears) you can go around pretending you 'knew all along' that it was a hoax and that only the crazies believed such nonsense in the first place. (No doubt those "crazies" characterized as the very people that opposed it in the first place, as is typical for the Left when they want to bury historically-inconvenient facts that they cheered on as millions of their fellow man were murdered or had their standards of living obliterated.)

"My little cult" just happens to include the folks who do this stuff for a living. Not a bad group to be in, whereas your little cult is made up of oil and coal companies, the folks who argued for decades that cigs were safe, and creationists.

I'll take my "cult" over yours any day.

The scientific consensus in the middle ages was that the earth was flat, in the 1880's the consensus amongst physicists was that they understood 90% of all physics. Neither consensus was right was it? Folks who cite consensus do so because they don't wish to debate or discuss. "Scientists" who do not release their raw data along with their means and methods are NOT participating in science.

The amount of feedback (that means money) for issuing science-ish papers promoting AGW dwarfs that for skeptic papers by roughly a couple orders of magnitude. While there is some evidence that CO2 will slightly offset the average surface temperature (by a few TENTHS), there is no evidence of human caused catastrophic warming. None.

There was no science as we know it in the middle ages, at least not in Europe. What that has to do with the meaning of consensus today is zip.

As for 1880s Physics, like I said, yes they didn't know anything about relativity, but guess what, 99% of reality is predicted just fine using the Newtonian equations. So yeah they were wrong, and yeah they did understand 90% of physics. I would not recommend you jump off a building because the "wrong" physics say you'll fall.

I don't know why you think the money in science is made by defending the status quo, as your 1880s example points out, the fame and money come from demonstrating something new. The fact that global warming denial proponents can't or won't publish in refereed journals isn't about money, it's because their claims don't stand up to professional scrutiny.

I've had my say on the myth of manmade global warming. There is no credible peer-reviewed science to support it, and the cult is collapsing a little more each day as real data contradicts the politicized junk science, and flawed--perhaps purposefully skewed--"research" is rejected.

Like the previous attempt at doomsaying in the 1970s, it is based upon an unhealthy amount of ego, self-importance, opportunism, a quest for power, and fraud.

Not rational facts.

The papers you point to in your previous posts aren't from peer reviewed science journals.

You have that part completely backwards, the peer reviewed work supports man made global warming, while the deniers post on their own websites and sell books to folks like yourself.

So are you really a believer in peer reviewed science, or do you just like the sound of it while ignoring the conclusions found in peer reviewed journals? Sadly it looks like the latter.

I'm sure you guys have already seen this, I mean you are exceptionally well read on the topic of climate change, but here's what scientists are telling Congress about man made warming:

UCAR Joins Scientific Organizations Signing Letter to Senate on Climate Change

October 21, 2009

BOULDER—As the U.S. Senate considers climate change legislation, 18 leading scientific organizations have sent a letter to members of the senate reaffirming the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and that greenhouse gases from human activities are the primary driver.

Richard Anthes, president of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, added his signature to the letter on behalf of UCAR, a nonprofit organization governed by 75 member universities granting Ph.D.s in atmospheric and related Earth system sciences.

Sent to all senators on October 21, the letter states in part:

Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment.

In the United States, these impacts could include sea level rise for coastal states, greater chances of extreme weather, regional water shortages and floods, and wildfires, the letter said. The organizations noted that a dramatic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions will be necessary to avoid such serious impacts and warned that adaptation will be required to address impacts that are already unavoidable. Adaptation methods include improved infrastructure design, sustainable water management initiatives, modified agricultural practices, and improved responses to incidents of hazardous weather.

In June 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed its version of a climate change bill. The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the first of several Senate committees to do so, is expected to begin consideration of climate change legislation later this month.

A PDF of the full letter sent to the Senate is available for download via the website of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Signatories on the letter include:
Richard Anthes

Richard Anthes (©UCAR, photo by Carlye Calvin.) News media terms of use*

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Meteorological Society
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/senateletter.jsp

So Jim, does it bother you that Mann's graph (replicated in much of the literature, sometimes without citation, and also used in Mr. Gore's film) relies on roughly ten trees to produce the drastic upward trend when nearby trees showed no upward trend? And of that set if one removes one specific tree and you use the remaining data there is only a slight upward trend. Doesn't it bother you just a little bit that so much politics is based upon that one tree?

No it doesn't bother me, because -- again -- the people who know this stuff backwards and forwards aren't basing their conclusions on one graph. This isn't about Al Gore's understanding of the data, it's about the guys in my previous posts understanding of the data.

Does is bother you that several independent examinations and reconstructions of the climate of the past 1000 years supports Mann's conclusions?

People: Jim is this sites designated AGW shill.

Jim will respond to every comment with the same drivel until everyone else stops posting.

Jim,

Just curious, what level of collage math did you have? Calc based physics? Thermo, fluids? Astrophysics, geology?

Just curious because as far as I can tell,you are just better at American English comp than I.

Jim - What is the ideal temperature for the earth? Since you are so concerned about warming you obviously must have a temperature target in mind.

Jim,
NASA unbiased? Get real. They will do and say anything that the government tells them. If you don't believe what is being said to refute you just look at the cap and trade bill. It is a tax. That is all. Now tell me how a tax is going to save the earth. How are any of the so called green measures going to impact temperature change? The fact is that they will do nothing with a big N. If The Great One really was concerned about clean energy he would open up nuclear options. When the Dems do that I will know that they are serious about the issue. But I agree with everyone who has made a comment, this is a total hoax. On a global level it is obvious it is a political move for global government.

The specialist journals are loaded with catastrophists who referee the submissions as well as make their living off of grants to study the "frightening" phenomena. Of course they know which goose lays the golden egg and they aren't about to let competing science stop the lay. If the refs are being paid by one team then it doesn't mean much when they throw the other team out for technicalities, either real, or made up to suit the need. (Please excuse the abuse of metaphor; sometimes it just spills-out)

If NASA says and does anything they government tells them they would have had a completely different take on AGW during the 8 years of the Bush Admin. You're claim is ridiculous on it's face.

As for Cap and Trade, I guess one either can choose to believe in the power of incentives in the market or not.

I have no problem with nuclear power. The problem is the very strong NIMBY factor that nuclear plants suffer.

As for my personal choice for the Earth's temperature, I have to say it's a stupid question. That would be like me saying, daleyrocks, you're against Islamic terror, what is the ideal number of Muslims on the Earth?

I'm in favor of a climate where the US coasts don't suffer increased storm damage, where our farms and cities don't get too much, or too little rain and snow pack etc... A temperature range where we don't see millions of displaced people in Africa and Asia. And so forth.

In short, I like the climate as it is thanks, and do not look forward to the economic, political, and military costs of change.

And CY, you commented on AGW, but didn't try to defend your claim that Obama foolishly wants "exclusively green energy". A complete falsehood.

Here are the mans own words on the subject from his speech yesterday:

"-- making the best use of resources we have in abundance, everything from figuring out how to use the fossil fuels that inevitably we are going to be using for several decades, things like coal and oil and natural gas;

figuring out how we use those as cleanly and efficiently as possible; creating safe nuclear power; sustainable -- sustainably grown biofuels; and then the energy that we can harness from wind and the waves and the sun.

It is a transformation that will be made as swiftly and as carefully as possible, to ensure that we are doing what it takes to grow this economy in the short, medium, and long term. And I do believe that a consensus is growing to achieve exactly that."

Your strawman version of Obama's stance is indeed naive and misguided, but it has little if anything to do with his actual policy positions.

Jim,
Good comment. I still stand by NASA being a whore to the left or anyone else with money. But you showed your true colors when you indicated that you desire for us to transform the weather for your comfort. We will wreck what little economy that we have and throw us in a depression that will make the 30's look like a picnic. All so that you can keep the beaches like they are. How is that possible with the minimal change that could occur if every government did what the various treaties call for?

Climate change is part of being on this earth or any other planet. The fact is that most don't know if it will be hotter in 20 years or if we will be in an ice age. If man is truly making an impact, the only answer is to reduce the number of people. So if this is a passion of yours, consider that option and you will be knowing that your carbon unit will definitely be helping the environment.

David, come on, now NASA isn't a tool of the government, but a "whore to the left or anyone else with money", but strangely not the groups who have the most money, big business. Keep trying, it only gets better. lol

And, no, I didn't say I wanted to transform the weather for my personal comfort. I said I would prefer we kept the climate our industry, cities, farms, infrastructure and homes were built to exploit.

Last but not least, thanks for offering me the choice of suicide, very classy. Instead, I'd prefer to move our economy away from imported oil, and towards homegrown, sustainable and clean energy sources. Do exactly what Obama is calling for, and what CY mocks, have the USA be on the leading edge of the next set of 21st century technologies instead of anchored to 19th and 20th century thinking and fossil fuels.

Good morning Jim.

I do not propose to be that educated on AGW, however I do have quite a bit of commonsense. When AGW advocates propose risking our economy to solve a theory, and have no proof of what they propose would work anyway, then I become wary.

You disparage experts that refute AGW as having financial connections to Exxon and coal companies. I could as easy make the statement that proponents have connections to government employee union needs of maintaining subsidies for their bureaucracies to study the issue, along with their allies in big business that manufacture green energy equipment.

Will you at least admit it would be wise to have proof of AGW before risking our economy? Will you at least admit that if AGW is proven valid we should have proof we can do something about it? Will you at least admit we should evaluate the benefits versus the harm of global warming to see if it would make sense to even attempt the massive effort your side proposes?

From NASA:
The atmosphere is primarily composed of Nitrogen (N2, 78%), Oxygen (O2, 21%), and Argon (Ar, 1%). A myriad of other very influential components are also present which include the water (H2O, 0 - 7%), "greenhouse" gases or Ozone (O, 0 - 0.01%), and Carbon Dioxide (CO2, 0.01-0.1%).
I don't pretend to be either a scientist or a mathametician but if man is responsible for producing 3% of 0.1% of the atmosphere and plants take this carbon dioxide and convert it to oxygen, wouldn't it make more sense for governments around the globe to mandate that everyone simply plant a garden? More plants = less carbon dioxide and more food not mass produced. sounds like a win win to me!

NASA pulled a Piltdown. People still proudly quote a study that was falsified?

If you don't know what Piltdown was, I'll use another metaphor.

NASA pulled a Steven Glass.

Never heard of it? OK.

How 'bout, NASA pulled a Lancet?

Still buying that too?

hmmmm. Let's try NASA pulled a Beauchamp/Green Helmet/McBeth/Daily Mirror/Rick Duncan/Dan Rather.

Hugh Pickens sends in a Wall Street Journal report that Chinese banks will provide $1.5B to a consortium of Chinese and American companies to build a 600-megawatt wind farm in West Texas, using turbines made in China. The wind farm will be built on 36,000 acres, and will use 240 2.5-megawatt turbines, providing enough power to meet the electrical needs of around 150,000 American homes. The project will be the first instance of a Chinese manufacturer exporting wind turbines to the United States. China aims to be the front-runner in wind- and solar-power generation "The Obama administration is hoping a shift to renewable energy will inject new life into the US manufacturing base and provide high-paying jobs, making up for losses in other sectors. But while the US has poured money into renewable energy through tax credits and other subsidies, China has positioned itself to reap many of the benefits by ramping up its export machine."