Jay Bookman

By alan

July 17, 2008 7:01 PM | Link to this

Jay -

Despite glaring evidences, the global-warming deniers will continue to perpetuate the all too familiar mantra that, “it is a scheme designed by elite leftists, communists, marxists, and anti-capitalists” to bring down the industrialization of the west.

This is an issue both Obama and McCain ought to seriously raise the level of debate on because it is in part related to finding a realistic solution to our current energy crises.

alan

By sunshine and thunder

July 17, 2008 7:09 PM | Link to this

You guys love to call those who disagree with you names but you offer no evidence that what they say is wrong.

BTW, the IRCC has been refuted and there are a lot of credentialed scientists who don’t believe in man made global warming.

I suggest you global warming balonyists google “eugenics” and relive another false science that took on a life of its own.

See if you can find some witches to burn while you’re at it.

By RW-(the original)

July 17, 2008 7:38 PM | Link to this

Actually the kooks that believe Lee Harvey Oswald had help and that spaceships are in area 51 are on the same side as the man made global warming Gorebots.

By Bud Wiser

July 17, 2008 7:40 PM | Link to this

Global warming exists. Global warming is a hoax. Who do you believe? Both sides of the issue parade their experts to testify to their respective positions.

Since Jay is outside cooking his dinner on the hood of his car, and forgot to present the non-global warming side, I shall do that.

A view from the French: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202005/NoGlobalWarm.pdf

The National Center for Public Policy Research: http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR032204.html

And another American’s position from an expert. Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19485

And finally, the American Policy Center: http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm

If you buy into this global warming crap that Al Gore is making himself rich on, and Jay has swallowed hook, line and sinker, then you are a fool. And these references are not from “…a small if dwindling band of global warming deniers (that) continues to fight on, insisting that as long as they hold out against the hordes of smock-clad scientists, no consensus can be said to exist.” Global warming has been ‘trended up’ like the presidential campaign; if you confront or oppose Barak ObamaI on anything, then you are a racist: if you don’t swallow the global warming fiction, then you are an out of touch denier of the faith.

Another example laid out perfectly by the left, showing just who is not in touch with reality. Listening to people bray about global warming is like trying to watch Congress get one dam thing done, or listenin to Nancy (the Commie)Pelosi shrill out again how nothing, no how, no where, no way, is up for negotiation on anything. It is her way or the highway. Just looking at that botox complection with her eyebrows pulled 3/4 the way up her forehead gives me the creeps.

I am ordering my winter clothes online, and going for the extra thermal protection.

By Bud Wiser

July 17, 2008 7:43 PM | Link to this

Jay, are you going to pull my post because you don’t agree with it? Or because it is factual?

By JAY BOOKMAN

July 17, 2008 7:55 PM | Link to this

Bud, you know very well why your post was pulled. This aggrieved-child act is beneath you. Or not, as the case may be.

By George E. Smith

July 17, 2008 8:08 PM | Link to this

What a crock. That EPA report is bogus even before the ink dried. The present global temperature is +15 deg C. So by the end of the century; according to the EPA’s “international team of “scientists” ” it will be 22.5 deg C The earth’s global temperature has NEVER been as high as 22.5 deg C, as far back ast the Permian era 600 million years ago when the CO2 wa !!! 7000 ppm !!!

You MMGW nutcakes have had your run; the wheels are falling off your chariot, and the earth is cooling rapidly while the CO2 continues to climb.

you need to go find yourselves a new scam; this one has been discovered.

By George E. Smith

July 17, 2008 8:11 PM | Link to this

Sorry there; make that the Cambrian; the Permian is much more recent.

By JAY BOOKMAN

July 17, 2008 8:11 PM | Link to this

Bud, I apologize. I have no idea why that most recent post was pulled, or even how. I thought you were referring to last night’s post. I’m trying to restore it.

By getalife "whiners"

July 17, 2008 8:13 PM | Link to this

Pelosi On Bush: God Bless That “Total Failure”

No, God damn that total failure.

Amen.

By RW-(the original)

July 17, 2008 8:20 PM | Link to this

Jay @ 8:11,

I’m sure you and I will disagree on most everything, but that was a class act. Kudos!

By Jay's brother

July 17, 2008 8:28 PM | Link to this

My dear brother Jay, so why was Greenland named as such when it was discovered??—you nor any of your global warming doomsayers have been able to explain that one in previous posts.

Since you are into data and facts, how about these:

NASA grudgingly admits now that the hottest year was not 1998 as previously reported, but 1934. And that 6 of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954.

Data from 3000 robots in the world’s oceans show there has been slight COOLING in the past 5 yrs.

Last winter was the coldest winter in decades.

German climate modelers report in the journal Nature that “global warming” is due for a decade long vacation

The arctic cap may be thinning, but the Antarctic sea ice has been expanding for years.

Consensus? Hardly. I suppose that the “global warming” type understand that these facts are out there (although hardly ever reported in the AJC), so now it’s “climate change”.

This has nothing to do with science no matter how much “global warmers” like to pretend by cherry picking data and certain “authorities”. It is all about politics. Since Communism and Socialism failed spectacularly in the 20th century, leftists like my dear brother Jay found that fear politics of global warming doomsday serves as a convenient vehicle to advance their collectivist agenda and forestall the advance of capitalism.

So dear brother, since you brought it up, I ask again: why was Greenland named as such?

By Daniel

July 17, 2008 8:29 PM | Link to this

Jay, Why don’t you look at actual data instead of clinging to unscientific beliefs? In other words, you need to check out some inconvenient truths. Specifically, why hasn’t there been any warming since at least 2000? Greenhouse emissions have shot up and yet not warming? Isn’t that a bit curious? http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/a-new-view-on-giss-data-per-lucia/

It is also important to listen to dissenting viewpoints, such as the editor of the American Physical Society who recently wrote, �There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.� http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm

Human have an effect on the climate, but the question is the extent of our effect. It is hard to claim we are the primary cause of the warming since the industrial revolution when we haven’t seen warming lately.

By Jay's brother

July 17, 2008 8:37 PM | Link to this

Oh and this just in dear brother, the American Physical Society, representing 50,000 physicists have REVERSED their previous position about global warming being man made—and that their is “considerable skepticism” among its membership.

I guess those small minded physicists lacking any logical intellect will fit in nicely at Little Big Horn, huh Jay.

Darn, nothing like statistics and science to foil a perfectly liberal political agenda.

By Jay's brother

July 17, 2008 8:48 PM | Link to this

Prof Viscount Monckton of the APS presented a paper that exposed that the position of IPCC(intergovermental panel on climate change) in their reports of 2001 and 2007 contain “numerous exaggeration and extensive errors”.

He also says that in the past 70 yrs, the Sun was more active than anytime in the past 11,400 yrs. Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as the Earth.

Now just who are the “denyers” again?

By Ozonator

July 17, 2008 8:55 PM | Link to this

Extremist Republican and Christians science consists of “selling used cars, delousing showers, and male enhancement”. In other words, �an elephant is soft and mushy� from those needing to do no home work based on their divine gene pool - �Report: US behind in doubling science grads� (By JUSTIN POPE, The Associated Press; nola.com, 7/15/08).

By Morningstar

July 17, 2008 8:56 PM | Link to this

Jay, a really good column as usual.

Alan @ 7:01PM….well said.

By Bud Wiser July 17, 2008 7:40 P am ordering my winter clothes online, and going for the extra thermal protection.

Hello out there Wiser family. Open the windows and turn on the fan come December! Bud’s gonna be smelling like the Green Acres piggy pen!!!

By Believer

July 17, 2008 9:00 PM | Link to this

Hack. Hack. Can’t…breath.

Too…Much…C…O…2.

Need…Plain…O…2.

No…Trees…Too…Much…Hot…Air…

Hack…Hack.

By Hilllbilly Deluxe

July 17, 2008 9:04 PM | Link to this

First let me say I am not a scientist. Actually I hated science in school but I wish I had learned more about chemistry I could have used that knowledge.

Anyhow just a few random observations. Industrialization started going great guns in the mid to late 1800s. I remember my Grandpa talking of driving ox carts across a creek on the ice in Gilmer County in the 1890s when he was a boy. The same creek is still there and to my knowledge hasn’t frozen in years. I remember when I was a boy how all the older people talked about how it didn’t get as cold anymore. They said in the old days it got cold around hog killing time and stayed cold all winter. I remember when I was a boy it stayed colder more in winter. We had more snow then and more frequent ice storms. (Nothing is without it’s upside or as Harry Caray used to say “It’s an ill wind that doesn’t blow somebody some good.”)

Anyway there are no facts and figures to back this up but I’ve heard people say all my life that it isn’t as cold as it used to be. Maybe they were on to something.

By Bob B

July 17, 2008 9:16 PM | Link to this

Jay—-boy are you wrong—The Earth has been cooling for the past 10yrs—no reason to fear. The Oceans have been cooling as well—-please read and learn :

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24036602-25717,00.html

By Bob B

July 17, 2008 9:20 PM | Link to this

American Physical Society now admits no consensus among scientists for human caused global warming:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/17/aps-edito-reverses-position-on-global-warming-cites-considerable-presence-of-skeptics/

By Bob B

July 17, 2008 9:22 PM | Link to this

Antarctic sea ice is at all time highs:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg

By Bob B

July 17, 2008 9:27 PM | Link to this

Every time there has been a moderated debate, the global warmer scientists have lost

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/03/intelligence-squared-climate-debate.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9082151

Even the “right wing” NPR was forced to admit this!

By Taxpayer

July 17, 2008 9:28 PM | Link to this

I personally try to avoid the discussions regarding just about any changes that occur on a global scale. There are more than enough unknowns for people to argue, with or without data, for a lifetime — however long that might be. I prefer instead to try and just get people to think about our meager lives here on this planet from a more simplistic viewpoint. For one, we need oxygen to survive. Second, we need plant life to convert all the CO2 that we make back into C and O2. There are more and more humans and animals every day and we consume more and more O2. We are burning more and more hydrocarbons which consumes O2 and creates more CO2 — a double whammy. We are cutting down more trees and other plant life than we are putting back so we have less and less CO2 being converted. Now, the logical solution is to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels or at least use methods that don’t continue to deplete oxygen while increasing CO2. In the mean time, we can all watch the earth either heat up or cool off in our lifetimes. The data-gathering process for that one will be like watching grass grow in slow motion. We’ve finally managed to start weaning ourselves off of cigarettes. Now, we need to take the next step toward a sustainable, breathable atmosphere. Let’s get rid of smog and breath easier for it. By the way, plant a tree also.

By Bob B

July 17, 2008 9:33 PM | Link to this

So please Jay—get your data straight:

NPR on the Oceans cooling:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

Globe is now cooling despite the chicken litte propaganda:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/12/four-scientists-global-warming-out-global-cooling-in/

By Ozonator

July 17, 2008 9:34 PM | Link to this

We have been chillin� ever since and General Motors was saved by advertising with LABI Limbaugh - � RUSH … Ha! Arrogant, arrogant people! … Story #4: 1936 Was Worst Year for Wildfires in California … RUSH … 1936 was the hottest year on record for this country … no CO2 hysteria … it wasn’t George Bush’s fault … couldn’t blame SUVs … it’s going to get cooler in the future. There’s nothing we can do about it� (�Stack of Stuff Quick Hits Page�; Mr. Rush �LABI� Limbaugh, The Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity extremist Republican and Christian hosts of corporate w******* for tired media outlets; Standard Oil of Palm Beach�s royal eunuch, plagiarism�s epicenter, and RNC liars club; rushlimbaugh.com, 10/25/07).

Now, even ExxonMobil is sponsoring snowmobile races on Scenic Highway in Baton Rouge outside their health spa.

By hillbilly ragger

July 17, 2008 9:41 PM | Link to this

snort.

the deniers—they’re sad, aren’t they?

Hillbilly Deluxe, like you say. Those who’ve been paying attention aren’t especially surprised by what the climatologists have found.

By TW

July 17, 2008 9:44 PM | Link to this

Gore nailed it when he said those who deny global warming share company with those who think the landing on the moon was fixed.

There is no greater evidence of this country’s lack of IQ than the current national swirl about the bowl. We are in this mess today because we have listened to bad advice. Who has had our ear? Limbaugh and his ilk with their horsh!t schtick designed only to fatten their wallets at the cost of our country.

Gonna be alot of wide-eyed republicans when St. Peter points at the slide….

By JAY BOOKMAN

July 17, 2008 9:44 PM | Link to this

This is too sweet, “brother.”

At random, I chose to investigate one item in your harangue, your claim that, and I quote, “the American Physical Society, representing 50,000 physicists have REVERSED their previous position about global warming being man made�and that their is �considerable skepticism� among its membership.”

I note that Bob B. noted that “change” as well. In your words, “nothing like statistics and science to foil a perfectly liberal political agenda.”

Yes indeed, nothing like statistics and science. Oh, and might I add, Google?

Because I googled American Physical Society, and what’s the very first entry?

Why, this:

“APS Climate Change Statement

APS Position Remains Unchanged

The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that “Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.” This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.”

Again, that is all from the APS site. There is also a link to the original APS position statement, the statement tat the APS reconfirms: It states, and I quote:

“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth�s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth�s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.”

Again, one Google query completely obliterates your claim. Just one.

You could have made that query. You , and Bob B., and others, could have responded with just a hint of skepticism and tried to doublecheck the claim you so enthusiastically embraced.

But you so WANTED to believe that you did not do that. As a result, you got suckered.

Back at Little Big Horn, “brother.”

By Bud Wiser

July 17, 2008 9:58 PM | Link to this

“By Morningstar

July 17, 2008 8:56 PM | Link to this

Jay, a really good column as usual.

Alan @ 7:01PM�.well said.

By Bud Wiser July 17, 2008 7:40 P am ordering my winter clothes online, and going for the extra thermal protection.

Hello out there Wiser family. Open the windows and turn on the fan come December! Bud�s gonna be smelling like the Green Acres piggy pen!!!”

Typically the ignorant liberal cannot discuss with a shred of intelligence the subject at hand, but instead resorts to the only things their feeble minds are capable of…insults, attempts at barnyard humor, or changing the subject matter.

Morningstar shows once more why you cannot reason with left wingers; they do not possess the intellectual capacity to try to answer FACTS without resorting to FICTION. I submit that the only thing that smells here is Morningstar’s ability to respond to information like a civil human being, instead of being a total jerkweed.

By Bud Wiser

July 17, 2008 10:09 PM | Link to this

Yet another:

(we could go on all night, but what’s the point?)

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57605

By RW-(the original)

July 17, 2008 10:18 PM | Link to this

All ones needs to know is how to google search to find all the answers?

I tried to get to the bottom of the McCain c-bomb controversy with a google search and let’s just say it wasn’t that helpful with the story, but it was entertaining.

By Eric

July 17, 2008 10:28 PM | Link to this

You need look no further for proof of global warming than the trend of milder winters. Atlanta has not had a serious ice storm in years (certainly there will be some from time to time, but the pattern is clearly in the null). Asheville, NC has hardly any significant snowfall anymore. I lived there in the mid-1980s and snow accumulation was already decreasing. How can anyone refute this? I fear for the next generation big-time!

By JAY BOOKMAN

July 17, 2008 10:29 PM | Link to this

no, RW, that’s all one needs to know. But in this particular instance — determining the official stance of a particular organization — it is a very useful tool.

Simple question, simple answer.

By RW-(the original)

July 17, 2008 10:39 PM | Link to this

Oh come on Jay, you had to see that I was using your post as a stepping stone for the joke and I think I kept it cryptic enough for a broad audience.

Dang, did I say broad?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes I realize you went to the official statement and made some people look a little foolish. Good for you. Personally I love the google and if you’re a conservative you learn to work from the last entry back if you want some facts.

By JAY BOOKMAN

July 17, 2008 10:43 PM | Link to this

Of course, RW. I didn’t take you literally….

And good night.

By AJC/DNC Management

July 17, 2008 10:44 PM | Link to this

Funeral for a friend.

I hurt in ways that can never be imagined.

By RW-(the original)

July 17, 2008 10:49 PM | Link to this

Goodnight Jay

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AJC/DNC-M,

Was that a serious post? Email me if it was. rw.theoriginal@gmail.com

By Taxpayer

July 17, 2008 10:52 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry to hear that you are in pain, Andy.

By Ozonator

July 17, 2008 11:04 PM | Link to this

Oooooo! That cooling trend prophesy of our typical American extremists has become so pronounced in just the last few hours that the Baton Rouge and Audubon Zoos will have to add polar bear exhibits to eat the migrating caribou not killed by our deer leases and other poachers. Big BR Mayor Holden will have to rename �Catfish Town� to �Arctic Char -Ming Estates�.

�Earth scored another Top 10 finish in June � climate wise. It was the eighth warmest June on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported Wednesday. And the first six months of the year were the ninth warmest since record keeping began in 1880� (�Global Warming: Top 10, Again�; The Associated Press; nola.com, 7/16/08).

By GodHatesTrash

July 17, 2008 11:09 PM | Link to this

Jay, Custer and Masada are interesting references - but how about the kid-raping whackos at Waco and Jim Jones’ kool-aid krew?

By God

July 18, 2008 12:04 AM | Link to this

God Hates Trash.

By Hillbilly Deluxe

July 18, 2008 1:03 AM | Link to this

This really has nothing to do with global warming but once Custer got himself into that little valley there he really had no choice but to fight on. Too bad he took all his men with him though. He screwed up and they paid the price with him.

By Monckton

July 18, 2008 3:49 AM | Link to this

The childishly petulant tone of this article conceals a deep and proper unease. Temperature has been falling globally for seven years, while CO2 concentration has been rising. A major paper in the current edition of Physics and Society says the UN’s climate panel has exaggerated the effects of CO2 on temperature by 500-2000%. So there is no climate crisis. End of scare. Time to write about something else.

By Ozonator

July 18, 2008 5:43 AM | Link to this

“Childishly petulant tone” is another gateway into more crimes against nature with ExxonMobil in the closet. Lord Monckton, it is time to put up or shut up.

Global warming has turned the planetary ecosystem into a kaleidoscope. With or without massive earthquakes, expect Jamaica, Cuba, and the area from Baton Rouge to Houston to be hit by a 1 - 2 category hurricane ecosystem from the main tropical system in Caribbean Sea. The current cluster of potential hurricanes lurking between Virginia and Brazil allow for a better prediction of victims than my earlier posts but may be insignificant compared to the death and destruction the predicted line of earthquakes on a matching tract. The current broad area of low pressure in the Caribbean Sea is the degenerated tropical wave from 7/13/08 that should become a 1 - 2 category hurricane and hit Jamaica, Western Cuba, and then between Houston and Baton Rouge in adherence with predicted hurricane paths (2/13/08) and energy discharges associated with earthquakes (7/13 - 19/08). �III. … B. North Atlantic Hurricanes for 2008 with potential for Europe, Africa, and South America … 2. … a. Havana - Monterrey, Mexico - Baton Rouge and b. Jamaica - Tampa - Palm Beach - Miami … The taxonomy key of hurricane ecosystems for 2008 with the relative percentage chance of getting wiped out is: 1.6. Mid-Atlantic - Bahamas/Hispaniola - Florida (Palm Beach/Tampa) - Alabama - Ohio - Pennsylvania, and 11%; 1.7.a. Mid-Atlantic - Grenada - Jamaica - Western Cuba - Louisiana - Alabama - West Virginia, 1.7.b. Mid-Atlantic - Grenada - Jamaica - Yucatan - Monterrey, Mexico� (�10th Annual 2008 North Atlantic Basin Hurricane Season Predictions with Related, Planetary Models�; Robert Rhodes, Supplemental; GBRWE 2/10 - 16/08; 2/13/08 - not included).

Bad news, we have already seen sympathetic harmonics with a ~3.1 Richter quake in Illinois and a ~5.6 Richter quake off of Oregon. Independent of what was done on 2/13/08,�B. The specifics of the Giulaino - Gansu Model (7/13 - 19/08) of extreme earthquake warnings with included statistics, analysis indicates for regions (magnitude in Richters) are: 1. Moon Walk Model: a. Nicaragua (6+) - Jamaica (5+) - Cuba (6+) - Louisiana (3+) - LABI, Missouri (4+) - Colorado (4+) - Northern California (7+)� (�GBRWE 7/13 - 19/08’s Extreme Planetary Warnings for Earthquakes, Volcanoes, and Solar/Terrestrial Flares from Human Activities�; Robert Rhodes, Supplemental; GBRWE 7/13 - 19/08, 7/12/08).

By Mike

July 18, 2008 6:11 AM | Link to this

Wow! That is some convincing argument Jay! A bunch of partisan ad hominem attacks directed at the same people you attack every single day and two quotes from two scientists who share your opinion.

Personally, I know that climate change is real, but that doesn’t mean that Bookman’s writing and logic is anything less than pathetic.

It is the kind of writing, at the level of a barely educated blogger, that is leading to the AJC’s slow death.

Maybe someday Jay will address the AJC’s failuresd in the same way he addresses any other business’s failure: with finger pointing and scorn.

Nah, that would require courage and intellectual honesty.

By Mike

July 18, 2008 6:22 AM | Link to this

If anyone wants to read what a real columnist writes, check out the post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/17/AR2008071701841.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Unlike Bookman, this guy actually makes his point about climate change without sounding like a petulant teenager. That’s why I cancelled the AJC years ago and got the Post delivered to my house.

By Taxpayer

July 18, 2008 7:25 AM | Link to this

And yet, those devout to the word of the post come back. What draws them. Is it boredom with their limited news source. What. What is it.

By Mike

July 18, 2008 7:41 AM | Link to this

Taxpayer -

Are you making the absurd claim that the Washington Post is a more limited news source than the AJC? Do you have any idea what you are talking about.

I come back to protest the hijacking of an important local resource by partisn activists. This focus on ideology instead of news is costing the community its local newspaper. W

e all know Fox News is a joke, but at least there are other options for TV news. We have no other option for local news and the AJC has used it monopoly to push the partisan views of its owners.

By Copyleft

July 18, 2008 7:57 AM | Link to this

Bloggers know nothing; policy centers know nothing; and, in particular, talk-radio drones know NOTHING about climatology.

Only climatologists are qualified to offer meaningful conclusions on this subject, and they have. Case closed.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

Despite the Bushies’ best efforts, you really DON’T get to dictate reality according to your political and economic preferences. Science has spoken. Debate over.

By hillbilly ragger

July 18, 2008 8:08 AM | Link to this

Mike, you obviously don’t actually read the newspaper, else you wouldn’t claim that the AJC “pushes the partisan views of its owners.”

I read more sub-literate right wing drivel in this hillbilly rag than any human being should have to tolerate. Christ, while I am saddened to hear of the loss of the local sections just because, in principle, we Gwinnettians ought to have such a section, I delight in never ever having to see the “Gwinnett Vent”, which was about 90% racist garbage about Those Mexicans Roonin’ Our Way a Laff.

This “partisan” AJC provides a forum for the bloodthirsty neocon thug Krauthammer, the simpering conservative apologist David Brooks, and George Freaking Will every week. Every week I gotta see these ugly mugs spewing their RW drivel.

And the letters! Every thin-skinned whiny-arsed teatty-baby who is offended to see Cynthia Tucker so much as mention a racial issue is published in glorious, whiny detail.

Partisan? These guys endorsed John Linder in 2006 for my district. John Linder! The FairTax nutball! the liar who said he’d term-limit himself, and never did! the guy who showed up at the top of the list of junketeers!

Shall I go on, Mike, or are you going to go complain to your Internets buddies that I’m being a meaniehead to you? Again?

By Taxpayer

July 18, 2008 8:08 AM | Link to this

I could not help but poke fun at you, Mike. You stated that you left AJC for the Post but you return to poke holes in Bookman’s opinion piece that happens to reference a Post article. Further, you seem to be projecting an opinion of your own that the AJC is suffering a loss of subscribers and or revenues due to some of their reporter’s/ editor’s biases and/or writing styles. Your inference is that they only need to emulate the Washington Post or some similar entity and all will be well in the world. Absurdity is in the eye of the beholder, Mike.

By Bob B

July 18, 2008 8:10 AM | Link to this

Jay—-I didn;t see you deny the Earths temperature has been deceasing? Because you can’t. The data is the data—something you know nothing about.

By Bud Wiser

July 18, 2008 8:14 AM | Link to this

By Copyleft

July 18, 2008 7:57 AM | Link to this

Bloggers know nothing; policy centers know nothing; and, in particular, talk-radio drones know NOTHING about climatology.

Only climatologists are qualified to offer meaningful conclusions on this subject, and they have. Case closed.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

Despite the Bushies� best efforts, you really DON�T get to dictate reality according to your political and economic preferences. Science has spoken. Debate over.

I looked at your so-called ‘scientific website’, and it is nothing more than a bunch of bloggers! Well, you were right about one thing; the debate IS over….you have no brain.

By Goldie

July 18, 2008 8:17 AM | Link to this

Nothing gets the corporatists’ underwear in a wad more than the issue of climate change today. Except maybe the issue of their “free market” CEO’s system now having to beg for mercy and money from the taxpayers! What a bunch of b***’ cry-babies!

These are the same corporatists who once perjured themselves by swearing that the cigarette industry had no knowledge of their product causing lung cancer… they will lie as long as they continue to exist!

By Bob B

July 18, 2008 8:23 AM | Link to this

Confession from a former warm-aholic—-no hot spot:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

By Shawny

July 18, 2008 8:23 AM | Link to this

Hasn’t been into the 90s all week. In Atlanta. In July. hmmmmm…

And where are the hurricaines. Haven’t had one hit the US mainland in going on 3 years.

Record cold temps in many parts of the US this past winter, including record snowfalls (precip <> drought).

I am not from Missouri, but SHOW ME.

By Goldie

July 18, 2008 8:23 AM | Link to this

Poor Mike — he cancelled his AJC subscription because he now spends all his time whining on the AJC blogs, insisting that only his small-minded viewpoint is newsworthy… why not start your own local newspaper, Mikey, if you really believe that the masses want to read your selection of what is you feel is newsworthy and unoffensive to your very small mind?

By Bob B

July 18, 2008 8:28 AM | Link to this

Copyleft—your heros have gotten their butts kicked. The IPCC projections have been recently falsified. And as hard as Gavin Shmidt tries to argue the other way—-the analysis of the past 7 years of Earths temperature are shown to 95% confidence to not fall in the IPCC or realclimate projections!

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/result-of-boring-series-gavins-closer-process-falsifies/#comments

By NRB

July 18, 2008 8:31 AM | Link to this

How much is the AJC polluting and contributing to global warming with the delivery of their papers? Step up to the plate, libs, and shut your paper down. You know…for the good of mankind.

By SaveOurRepublic

July 18, 2008 8:32 AM | Link to this

Like the fraud of “Peak Oil”, man-made/caused Global Warming is a complete hoax drummed up by the Globalist Elite funded “Green (= New “Red”)” movement to obtain further big government enpowerment via global carbon taxation & sustainable development (*see the UN’s Agenda 21, etc.). This is all part of the Elite’s agenda implementation strategy folks!

http://books.google.com/books?id=8HzBjbAaOVcC

By Fix-It

July 18, 2008 8:33 AM | Link to this

One eruption of a volcano puts out more CO2 than man has made in 10 years, the problem is Al Gore could not figure out how to tax a volcano. Wake up you losers this is a scam to make Al rich. Paying for �Carbon Credits� does not make it go away, if you want a true consensus from the scientist poll all 20 million of them not the 2500 on Al Gore�s payroll.

By Mike

July 18, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this

Taxpayer bleated:

“You stated that you left AJC for the Post but you return to poke holes in Bookman�s opinion piece that happens to reference a Post article.”

So what? I never questioned the validity of his quotes. I was pointing out how feeble his writing and logic were. (Kind of like your feeble writing and logic.)

“Further, you seem to be projecting an opinion of your own that the AJC is suffering a loss of subscribers and or revenues due to some of their reporter�s/ editor�s biases and/or writing styles.”

It isn’t just my opinion. The blog the AJC put up about their layofs had many quotes from former subscribers who cancelled their subscription because they no longer wanted to purchase the liberal Fox News.

I also worked at Cox Communications for years and still have many friends there. It is common knowledge that the paper is liberal and has gotten more so over the past few years. is it so absurd to think that this may cost it subscribers in one of the most conservative states in the US?

“Your inference is that they only need to emulate the Washington Post or some similar entity and all will be well in the world.”

This is a silly straw man. I never said anything remotely like that nonsense.

What I inferred was that the Post’s writers are far better than Bookman. As a result, I choose to purchase the superior product. Looks like a lot of people are, as the AJC’s circulation is dropping at about three times the rates of the Post’s.

By Chicken Little

July 18, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

By @@

July 18, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this

Jay:

The word likely seems to carry a lot of weight with you liberals. Let’s try this:

*It’s as likely as not that you have stones.

So how much do they weigh?

By Goldie

July 18, 2008 8:42 AM | Link to this

How much are the right-wingnut extremists causing more global warming with their b@llshit arguments day after day? Step up to the plate, true Conservatives, and shut down your gas-bag extremists… you know, for the good of your Christian love for humanity.

By Bob B

July 18, 2008 8:43 AM | Link to this

Recent paper shows CO2 effects overstated by 500%:

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

And here is a copy of Gavin Schmidt of Realclimate trying to find fault in the paper, ending up again getting his butt kicked:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/moncktonpapers/chuckitschmidtasciencecommentaryonwebpostsat_realclimate.html

Soit is the deniers who are really turning up the heat Jay—-that is the only heating because the Earth is coooooling!

By Taxpayer

July 18, 2008 8:45 AM | Link to this

Dang,

Did anyone here take any Physics in school. Thermodynamics, perhaps? Does Entropy ring a bell. If you want to extend the time horizon out far enough, then it’s a pretty safe bet that things are gonna get cooler. But, what about over shorter times? The qualitative answer is that we can and will obviously have temperature variation about the longer-term trend — the trend toward absolute zero. Then again, who really knows what’s going to happen in another few billion years. We could always wait and see or we could use some common sense and start thinking about being just better stewards of this place we call home. What have we got to lose.

By Eric1

July 18, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this

Too bad these brain tumors won’t be around to participate when the earth starts to sizzle. And too bad the sensible among us won’t be around to say I told you so. Or, maybe it’s not as far off as we think, and we’ll all suffer the consequences of our actions/inaction. In any case, global warming is real and many will suffer because of it.

By Fred

July 18, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this

Why do we call it Greenland? It’s covered with snow. Gee, could it be that when the viking arrived, it was…er….green? Why would that be? Could it be that during the middle ages, it was a lot warmer than now? This is just a bunch of greedy politicians clamoring to make a pile of cash off Carbon Credits. When was the last time you saw ANY prominent global warming alarmist actually taking public transportation or driving a Prius? Um….NEVER! That’s because they want everyone else to put up while they profit. Jay and the rest of you liberal losers a just a bunch of patsies!! What a pack of idiots.

By Al Gore

July 18, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this

Okay all you heathens! Park your SUV’s and turn off those air conditioners! Buy those carbon offsets to pay for your sins! as he walks away to take an SUV ride to his awaiting private jet to go back to his 191,000 kilowatt hour estate

By Mike

July 18, 2008 8:54 AM | Link to this

“By Goldie

How much are the right-wingnut extremists causing more global warming with their b@llshit arguments day after day? Step up to the plate, true Conservatives, and shut down your gas-bag extremists� you know, for the good of your Christian love for humanity.”

Say hello to the future of the AJC as the print paper dies and it turns into another Huff Post. Comments like the above will be the last residue of Henry Grady’s squandered legacy. Really sad.

By grelican

July 18, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this

From where I sit, if 99 percent of the experts agree that global warming is happening and it’s caused by us, giving the 1 percent who don’t think so equal time on the matter like there are two equal and opposing views on it just seems foolish.

In the rest of the world, this isn’t a liberal or conservative thing. It’s a scientific thing. We look at CO2 levels over the past 800k years, look at storm patterns, look at sea ice, and we look at our contribution to it all and come up with the opinion that this is likely our doing.

99 percent of the experts agree on this. Even if they’re wrong, I like the odds, especially considering what’s at stake.

Since when did clean air, clean water and carcinogen-free toys become some kind of liberal march against freedom? Think for a minute about who’s feeding you those lines.

Come on, guys we all have to live here. Park the Escalade at least. Life goes on, even without OnStar and 16 cupholders.

By Call it Like it is

July 18, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this

GLOBAL WARMING = THE BIGGEST HOAX!

FACT: THE TEMP HAS BASICALLY REMAINED THE SAME FOR THE LAST 40-50 YEARS!

FACT: MAN CAN NOT CONTROL THE WEATHER!

GEE WIZ

By hillbilly ragger

July 18, 2008 8:58 AM | Link to this

Come on, wingnuts—you’re supposed to tell us that Al Gore is fat! and he didn’t take a rowboat across the ocean to pick up his Nobel prize! which proves he LIES!!

By Taxpayer

July 18, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this

I’m sorry that I hurt your feelings, Mike. There, does that make you feel better now or are you just angry at Cox. We can work on those issues together. So, tell me — no, tell us — all about it. Don’t worry about hurting my feelings. Just bleat away. I’m sure it will do your heart good.

By the way, I sure hope that I didn’t infer anything that I did not clearly state. If I did though, you be sure to let me know. OK, Mike.

By Fred

July 18, 2008 9:03 AM | Link to this

“99 percent of the experts agree”

According to whom? Why have hundreds of scientists come out opposing it? I love how lying liberals make up stats when the they need create a need for THEIR solution. It’s all about control and money. Of course, no one wants to talk about the famous “Hockey Stick” that required “finessing” the statistics to create. Liars and the fools who enable them.

By Copyleft

July 18, 2008 9:06 AM | Link to this

As I said, if you’re not a climatologist, your opinions and “refutations” count for nothing.

Policy Institutes produce opinions, not facts. Climatologists are the only ones qalified to speak on this isssue at all.. and they have. Refutations from non-scientists who don’t understand the science or the data—mean NOTHING.

It’s not all about who shouts the loudest or who can drum up the most signatures on a petition… it’s about the SCIENCE. Which only climatologists can evaluate.

Put up a climatologist’s assessement, or accept that reality isn’t conforming to your wishes.

By GodHatesTrash

July 18, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this

It’s moronic to think that humans don’t impact their environment. The 9000 square mile SMSA that includes the city of Atlanta is routinely 2-10 degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside, virtually every day, winter and summer.

Dogs are smart enough not to s-hit where they eat. Not so Republicans, I guess.

By Vienna

July 18, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this

Planet formation and mean temperature variations are part of the larger process of the radio-active space-time evolution of any solar system.

Earth cannot be audience to the solar wind without capitulating to electro-magnetic eddies and oscillations inherent in any charged gyroscope.

After the Fact, variations in mean global temperatures are observable, but no preditions or cause/effect conclusions can be drawn.

In other words, we could be in the throes of a new ice age, and not know it, we simply are too ignorant a species to realize the underlying principles involved as any galaxy ages.

We are leaderless. The juried blind leading the gullibly deaf and dumber.

By Copyleft

July 18, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this

giving the 1 percent who don�t think so equal time on the matter like there are two equal and opposing views on it just seems foolish.

It’s no coincidence that this very same tactic is embraced by the nuts of the Intelligent Design movement. “So WHAT if it isn’t actual science? It’s our OPINION, dangit, and that should be all that matters! Equal time for crackpots! Attica! Attica!”

By Fred

July 18, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this

“President Bush acknowledges that global warming is real and that mankind is a significant contributor”

Wait a minute, I thought all you liberals told us that Bush is both an idiot and a liar? Now you trot him out as an authority on this? How convenient…

By Opus X

July 18, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this

When this passes and the sky does not fall (or burst into flames, if you will) will the global warming crowd admit they were wrong? Because, I’m still waiting for Time magazine to admit its error for its 1978 cover story, that sourced a consensus within the scientific community, that we were headed for an ice age?

By Goldie

July 18, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this

Mike @ 8:54 — whine, whine, whine. It’s very unbecoming for a grown man. Or are you another 3rd grader like Andy-DUH?

By Peter

July 18, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this

By Call it Like it is

July 18, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this

GLOBAL WARMING = THE BIGGEST HOAX!

FACT: THE TEMP HAS BASICALLY REMAINED THE SAME FOR THE LAST 40-50 YEARS!

FACT: MAN CAN NOT CONTROL THE WEATHER!

GEE WIZ

He goof ball why don’t you cut down all the trees and see ………… Man has affected the change……

By Fix-It

July 18, 2008 9:18 AM | Link to this

Gee, Copyleft, I believe you so look right here and you will see that over 10,000 climatologists DO NOT believe in global Al Gore scam� http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/provednoclimate_crisis.html

By Goldie

July 18, 2008 9:18 AM | Link to this

Fred @ 9:10 — that’s just to point out to you that even your dumb-@ss hero is less ignorant than your 1% science-deniers.

By Bob B

July 18, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this

Where is the global warming????

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/files/080718%20oped%20bolt%20global%20cooling.pdf

By Truth

July 18, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this

It this seems weak, but the freaking sun is hotter….

By Eric1

July 18, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this

Fred, you are some kind of stupid. Did you bother to even read what you wrote? Your brain tumor is growing at an alarming pace.

By Believer

July 18, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this

I believe that:

1) You cannot go full circle without using the exact value of Pi.

2) Radiation heat transfer is our sole means of survival.

By Mrs. Godzilla

July 18, 2008 9:30 AM | Link to this

Mr FIX IT

Sources dude Sources….

Robert Ferguson is the President of the Science and Public Policy Institute, formerly the Frontiers of Freedom Center for Science and Public Policy[1], an organization that promotes the views of global warming skeptics. Greenpeace’s ExxonSecrets website states that “Ferguson set up the Center for Science and Public Policy in early 2003, after a $100,000 grant from ExxonMobil in 2002 - specifically tagged for the center. Exxon has continued to fund the Center each year since then, to the tune of at least $50,000 a year.” [1]

FOR THAT KINDA $$$$ I’D SAY SANTA WAS REAL

of course, there’s lots of money to be made in global warming denials

By SaveOurRepublic

July 18, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this

Al Gore’s Nobel Prize doesn’t legitimize his man-made/caused Global Warming rhetoric one iota! The Nobel Prize has largely become a mechanism for the Globalist Elite to “aware” those who assist in the propagation of their various agendas. Just have a look-see at some of the past laureates…Andrew Huxley (1963) - brother of chief eugenicist Julian Huxley & “Brave New World” author Aldous Huxley; UNICEF(1965)-ie - the Globalist Elite’s primary front organization the (crooked UN); Henry Kissingerr (1973) - Trilateral Commission & CFR mainstay; UN “Peacekeeping” Forces - *note the multiple sexual abuse history; Mikhail Gorbachev (1990) - Globalist Elite pawn; Nelson Mandela (1993) - avowed communist on who’s watch the Boer genocide took place; Yasser Arafat (1994) - terrorist; Kofi Annan (2004) - embroiled in multiple UN scandals (ie - oil for food); Jimmy Carter (2004) - PLO apologist & Trilateral Commission co-founder. The Nobel Prize is a joke!

By Fred

July 18, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this

Eric, maybe some day I will be as brilliant as you.

By Mrs. Godzilla

July 18, 2008 9:36 AM | Link to this

Bob B

That old chestnut was debunked here

Keep Up!

By Theresa

July 18, 2008 9:37 AM | Link to this

Planet formation and mean temperature variations are part of the larger process of the radio-active space-time evolution of any solar system.

Earth cannot be audience to the solar wind without capitulating to electro-magnetic eddies and oscillations inherent in any charged gyroscope.

After the Fact, variations in mean global temperatures are observable, but no preditions or cause/effect conclusions can be drawn.

In other words, we could be in the throes of a new ice age, and not know it, we simply are too ignorant a species to realize the underlying principles involved as any galaxy ages.

We are leaderless. The juried blind leading the gullibly deaf and dumber.

They’re discovering water on mars, and the moon. How did it get there. Solar system formation, that’s how. The Solar System, as it forms, is bombarded with ice and dust in the form of comets, asteroids, and all kinds of star sewage.

Carl Sagan used to say, “we are star stuff”. WRONG. We are earth poo. (especially you)

Earth excreted us. Literally. think about it. All energy comes from the sun, the earth digested that energy and took a fierce one. A human being appeared. (that had to hurt.) I know where the a-hole is! (I’m the Indiana Jones of geo-rectal science)

By AJC/DNC Management

July 18, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this

RW-(the original): I’m alright, thanks for your concern, you too, TaxPayer.

I probably shouldn’t have gotten so dramatic, I was a little foggy, although in many ways it is worse than I made it sound.

Even though this life can be so unbelievably cruel, it can still leave you with more than what you have lost.

Never forget that the Father Loves each and every one of us, I have seen His Hand working in ways that I was foolish enough to doubt the He could or that I ever expected.

By JDavid

July 18, 2008 9:41 AM | Link to this

By JDavid

July 18, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

By JDavid

July 18, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

By hillbilly ragger

July 18, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this

Hilarious 2003 quote from one of the Exxon-supported deniers, the “Science and public policy institute”, cited by one of our nutballs, here: ”We don’t lobby, we educate,” said Bob Ferguson, head of the center, who spent 24 years working as a Republican Congressional staff member. ”We try to be nonpolitical and nonpartisan and nonideological.”

By ron

July 18, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this

Since the polar icecaps were greatly extended only about 13,000 years ago,it’s kind of a moot point to debate global warming.Since they’ve melted it appears that global warming took place.We’re now debating mankind’s contribution to the cause,or at least that’s what we should be debating.We should be especially debating Al Gore’s contribution.He may be the cause of about a lot of it.

Since the experts are so divided on the subject,I guess I’ll wait awhile before I decide who/what’s at fault.

By Bob B

July 18, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

Godzilla—-what are you referring to?—you are linking to a different reference then the recent work.

And BTW the issue of CO2 sensitivity is still a major issue:

http://climatesci.org/2008/07/17/spencer-rw-and-wd-braswell-2008-feedback-vs-chaotic-radiative-forcing-%e2%80%9csmoking-gun%e2%80%9d-evidence-for-an-insensitive-climate-system/

http://climatesci.org/2008/07/15/recent-ignored-scientific-findings-an-illustration-of-a-broken-scientific-method/

By Fix-It

July 18, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

The sky is falling, the sky is falling, quick give Al Gore money�.losers�

By Goldie

July 18, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this

Mrs. G. and Hillbilly— thanks for that update on how Exxon’s BILLIONS of taxpayer $$$ are being spent! It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sickening.

By Taxpayer

July 18, 2008 9:53 AM | Link to this

What can I say, “AJC/DNC…”. After all, there is pain in life as there is life in pain — unless she gets an epidural. Now, blog away and prepare to receive some more pain — virtual style.

By Bosch

July 18, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this

Good morning bloggers.

Another global warming debate.

I suspect that most who deny it are either in the “it will take too much to fix” it camp, or simply do not think it’s real.

Obviously, this is tied in with our energy crisis, and developing ways of cleaner energy will be one step away from foreign oil, and better for the environment - two problems averted.

Andy,

As I was scanning through the posts from last night and this morning I see that you have lost a friend or relative. I’m sorry for your loss. I too lost a friend recently, very suddenly. My sympathies.

By GeorgiaValues

July 18, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this

If my President says there is global warming, I believe it.

If McCain says there is global warming, I believe it.

Neither man is ever wrong!

By Theresa

July 18, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

Ron, you’ll have to wait 100K years, or maybe 100 seconds. We dont know.

Taxpayer. Global Warming has nothing to do with the short term atmospheric apparatus implied in all thermodynamic formulas. All you’re implying is that it’s hot because it’s hot.

People: Global Warming is a destiny-consequence of larger forces. Forces you couldn’t fathom if you took at least one of your hands out of your pants and opened a book.

A planet filled with fondle-dunces, and once in a century, someone comes along and explains what light is. And the hand-to-cheek challenged still dont get it.

Un-forking-believable.

Now if all you’re claiming, like Gore, is that there is more CO2 in the atmosphere today than 100 years ago, then fine. So what? We dont know what that will do to the global mean temperature whatsoever.

It’s getting hotter because we are expecting it to get hotter and we are looking for proof that it’s getting hotter in the 100 years of data we’ve recorded. You find what you look for. john lennon proved that. I think Jesus did too.

Seek, and ye shall find!

Glacier melting? It means we dont understand what glaciers are, or their own processes, not that CO2 is heating up our atmosphere causing the glaciers to melt. That’s a leap I will not take.

By Midori

July 18, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this

From what I’m able to distinguish by reading thru this thread, the right vehemently denies the existence of global warming simply because they despise Al Gore.

Correct?

Would you be more open minded if there were a different messenger?

By GodHatesTrash

July 18, 2008 10:20 AM | Link to this

We can leave science and climate study to the scientists and climatologists, or we can leave it to the Georgia GED crowd and Bible college graduates.

You are either smart enough not to sh-it where you eat, or you aren’t.

By Taxpayer

July 18, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this

Theresa. Entropy obviously took its toll on you years ago. As for your understanding of thermodynamics, I’ll let you know when you are getting warm, Glacier Girl.

By Goldie

July 18, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this

That�s a leap I will not take.

Theresa the Vague @ 10:04 — so what in your verbose view is the problem with humans in the meantime trying to cut down the amount of CO2 emissions that ARE created by the burning of fossil fuels? Where’s the harm, just in case you yourself fail to make that leap of opinion?

By T

July 18, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this

Does that mean that the northern ice cap isn’t melting and Santa will live?

Both sides say different things and have alot of data behind both views. Who to believe?

By Bob B

July 18, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this

Jay, I bring it up again. Can you show that the Earth has warmed in the past 10yrs? The past 5-6yrs. No you cannot!!!!!

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/files/080718%20oped%20bolt%20global

The IPCC forecast for warming is now 95% falsified!

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/result-of-boring-series-gavins-closer-process-fa

Can any of you warmers explain why the Earth has not been warming for 10yrs and now appears to be cooling over the past 6-7yrs???

By CommunistAJC

July 18, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this

Jay, I’m more concerned with terrorism than I am with global warming. We have NO control over the Earth and I don’t see how we can stop it. I talked to greenpeace people outside my office back in February. It was -3 that day here in Chicago. They asked me how I could help stop global warming. I simply told them that I greet global warming with open arms because I’d much rather have 80 degree weather than -3. The greenpeace guy was really p** and raised his voice at me for all to see. Then, I simply pointed out that he was breathing too much CO2. He got even angrier. My point is, NO ONE has a clue as to how this even works. One minute our farts cause it, the next minute its cars, the next minute its our air conditioners. Madison, Wis just banned drive thrus at fast food restaurants. I’m understanding quite well that all this global warming nonsense is a way to kill our freedoms and business. Al Gore sits in his billion dollar mansion and flies on his 300 fleet of private jets and tells us how to live. I just don’t by it.

By Taxpayer

July 18, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this

GHT,

You might want to be careful where you tread there regarding the topic of “biosolids” unless you have chin-high wading boots. Your concern of pooping where you eat is a lot closer than you might realize.

By Taxpayer

July 18, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this

The “life and death” of a blog topic — existence proof of entropy or just another hoax perpetrated by the environmentalists lurking amongst us? “You Decide-2008”[tm]. The truth is out there — in Area 51.

By Maniac is accurate

July 18, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this

Better snap up big tracts of land near Waycross now. When it’s the next big seaside resort it will be too late.

By CommunistAJC

July 18, 2008 10:42 AM | Link to this

Copyleft, You say Climatologists are the only ones whos opinion should count. Okay, so why is AL GORE at the forefront screaming that the sky is falling? Last time I checked he was just another failed politician out to make money off the masses of global warming worshipers.

By GodHatesTrash

July 18, 2008 10:46 AM | Link to this

The GOP attitude is this - might be warming, might be cooling, who effin’ cares, let’s just keep trashin’ the place like we always do, turn the whole world into a giant Tebakky Road trailer park. More cheetos please.

By Dusty

July 18, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this

Hey, I don’t know!! Today is cool. Tommorrow may be hot! Take your pick.

So far, I would say Theresa offers the best theory (which she kindly presented twice). At least, it SOUNDS scientific.

Anyway, blowing obnoxious stuff into the air does not seem like a good idea. Anyone who has been within twn miles of a paper plant without filters knows what I mean. Peeyew!! Same thing…starting the car in a closed garage. Deadly! Hard to poopoo the effects of earth & air pollution.

So I leave shortly with this Gore-like Bore for Shore truthism…If denizens of deniers dine on dinner diligently, dozens definitely decry domains of dubious duplicity during daring debate! Right????

By Maniac is accurate

July 18, 2008 10:47 AM | Link to this

Who is this Andy everyone keeps referring to? Or at least what handle does he use on there, because I see no posts from Andy. My sympathies as well. Just want to know who we’re referring to. Thanks.

By theScientist

July 18, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this

“the planet is warming and that mankind is driving that change.”

“that global warming is real and that mankind is a significant contributor. “

The second is a statement I can agree with., and hopefully a refinement of the progressive policy that will help bring everyone together. Perhaps the heat is getting to high for global-warming alarmism too..

By theScientist

July 18, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this

“the planet is warming and that mankind is driving that change.”

“that global warming is real and that mankind is a significant contributor. “

The second is a statement I can agree with., and hopefully a refinement of the progressive policy that will help bring everyone together. Perhaps the heat is getting to high for global-warming alarmism too..

By Goldie

July 18, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this

I�m understanding quite well that all this global warming nonsense is a way to kill our freedoms and business.

Communist @ 10:34 — once again, where’s the harm in humans trying to lower CO2 emissions coming from the burning of fossil fuels? Even if you don’t believe there’s anything to the “global warming myth”, as opposed to 99% of the rest of the world’s belief, where’s the harm in reducing what is humankind’s contribution to CO2?

By Bosch

July 18, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this

Communist AJC,

Al Gore may be the messenger for the global warming crowd, but there are plenty of mouthpieces on the other side who scream just as loud - Ben Stein, Rush Limbaugh, etc. They are all mouthpieces.

If Al Gore or anyone else, including T. Boone Pickens, makes money by doing something about cleaning up the planet, then who cares? I don’t.

In my opinion, cleaning up the planet, and developing cleaner fuels in the process to get us off foreign oil is good for all.

By CommunistAJC

July 18, 2008 11:00 AM | Link to this

Goldie, Like I said, the harm comes when government imposes stupid laws banning drive thru windows and so forth. We all breath CO2. So what next, killing people who breath too much? I’m all for driving less to save on having to buy gas from middle eastern countries but to tell me that I am killing the planet is just nonsense. Also, I am not a person who cares about what the world thinks about me. That sounds like insecurity to me. The world doesnt seem to care too much when babies are aborted or people being murdered by thugs in Africa.

By Bosch

July 18, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this

Maniac,

AJC/DNC Management

By Goldie

July 18, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this

Maniac @ 10:47 — Andy is our resident AJC 3rd-grade blogger. He goes by many blog names and has been known to name-jack frequently, just like some 3rd-grader would do. His current incarnation seems to be “AJC/DNC” whatever — just look for those childish rants that go on and on and provides no links to any source material ever… I’ve read many bloggers’ post that they just scroll on thru— I know I do.

By CommunistAJC

July 18, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this

Bosch, You’ve just nailed my point. It’s all about money. Not about cleaning up the Earth. IF it were so then Al Gore would not live in a billion dollar house with zero green amenities. Yes, Rush is a mouthpiece but he doesn’t make his money by means of government control. AL Gore does. All politicians do. They make their money off of us tax payers and we are the ones paying the price. I’m totally for alternative fuels as long as they work and get us off of oil. But for now, oil is the answer. IF we drill here we won’t be in debt to countries that hate us. Food prices have gone up as a result of Ethanol. How about nuclear power? France has it and their energy prices are lower than ours. Until we find a better solution we will all pay the price.

By Taxpayer

July 18, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this

Hot air rises. Of course, it’s all relative or so the theory goes. Red shift, blue shift — it just depends on whether it’s coming or going. Faster, faster, I say. But my mass will not let me speed away without limit. For we can see the light but we cannot escape it or even catch up with it — yet. Now that’s what you call “faith”.

By Barney

July 18, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this

Frankly, I think that man made global warming is BS but it would be nice to have some clean air in the city. Hey, I have an idea. I will get rid of my smoke belching SUV when the rest of you stop smoking pot!

By GodHatesTrash

July 18, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this

Found a link to a vid clip of Andi/duh

By Copyleft

July 18, 2008 11:10 AM | Link to this

Commie: Al Gore is popularizing what climatologists have determined. If we were simply taking Gore’s word for it, that would be silly. Putting blind faith in a random spokesperson who says things you like to hear is just so…

so…

Republican. And that’s the opposite of sound thinking.

By CommunistAJC

July 18, 2008 11:17 AM | Link to this

Copyleft, I’m not a Republican. Independent thank you. ANYWAY, the founder of the Weather Channel says global warming is crap. Is he an idiot? Nope. I can find plenty of Climatologists who disagree with Al Gore. The problem is that Al Gore refuses to debate the issue. He said the debate was over when there was never one to begin with. Explain please, how Mr. Gore can sit in his billion dollar home and tell me that I need to consume less energy in lowly home? How can he fly around the world in his jets while I can barely afford a plane ticket? He puts out ten times as much CO2 as me. I just think it is hypocrisy. And please, don’t throw up the republican this and that. It is not a democrat republican issue. It is a truth or false issue.

By Bosch

July 18, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this

Communist AJC,

First of all Al Gore doesn’t live in a billion dollar house. Second of all, he doesn’t make his money off the government. He’s not a politician anymore.

If Al Gore’s businesses get government money, and they are doing something to help clean up the environment, I don’t have a problem with it. I’d much rather my taxes go towards something beneficial. If Rush Limbaugh creates a company that develops alternative fuels or systems to help clean up the environment, and he were to get subsidies, I wouldn’t have a problem with that either.

I don’t care WHO does it, just that it gets done.

Everything is always about money, as many of the deniers do so because of the economic impact. Personally, I think we should go towards nuclear, wind, and solar power. Drilling? Don’t see that it will help, because domestic reserves will not help us financially.

For the short term? There is no short term solution except conservation.

Gotta go clean out the basement, I’ve been procrastinating all morning and it’s almost not morning anymore.

By Abomi Nation

July 18, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this

Explain please, how Mr. McCain can sit in all of his billion dollar homes and tell me that I need to consume less energy in lowly home? How can he fly around the world in his jets and Straight Talk Express Bus while I can barely afford a plane or a bus ticket? He puts out a billion times as much CO2 as me. I just think it is hypocrisy.

By MANGLER

July 18, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this

Since this has become a highly contentious political item, both sides have become ridiculous in their allegations and name calling. I don’t care whether you believe in man made global warming or not. I care about being able to breathe the air and drink the water. Can we discuss pollution without the fluff? I don’t think anyone can argue that living next to a factory or in a smoggy city is a good or pleasant thing.

By Fred

July 18, 2008 11:35 AM | Link to this

Bosch- I don’t usually agree with your posts but I wholeheartedly agree with your statement about going toward Nuclear, Wind and Solar. I do think that drilling will bring down prices in the short term but it does not permanently address the problem and our kids will be having the same discussion about high gas prices as demand once again exceeds supply. I don’t think that use of petroleum products causes warming but it definitely causes a great deal of pollution.

By Hillbilly Deluxe

July 18, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this

I don’t really like Al Gore. I see him as an Uber-hypocrit. Buying carbon credits to offset a lavish lifestyle means nothing to me. I much more admire someone like the late actor Dennis Weaver who actually tried to walk the walk.

However I think there’s really nothing to be lost in trying to make the world a little cleaner. We all know that vegetation takes CO2 out of the air yet we continue to strip away acres of it every day. To argue that man has no effect on the atmosphere just doesn’t make sense to me. Everything is a trade off in life but we do need to find a better balance I believe.

I remember as a boy my Grandpa (who was a farmer) telling me that “if you take care of the land, the land will take care of you”. There were environmentalists long before the word was ever coined.

By SaveOurRepublic

July 18, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this

Bosch @ 11:21 AM EDT - Indeed utilizing solar, nuclear, wind & hydroelectric energy options would be beneficial, as we need to take advantage of all available options to free the U.S. from foreign oil dependence. However, we also need to capitalize on all U.S. oil options, and this goes beyond just drilling. In addition to opening up ANWR, inter-contential exploration, Pacific & Atlantic drilling, we need to reduce the various fuel blend regulations across the country and open new refineries across the U.S. While the drilling portion wouldn’t have immediate, major benefits, the whole proposal (I stated above) would help our long term reduction of foreign oil dependency. That all being said, it’s extremely doubtful that the controlled puppets on “Crapitol sHill” will allow all of these (very beneficial) options, as it goes against the agenda of their Globalist Elite ma$ter$!

By Taxpayer

July 18, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this

Mangler,

You greatly underestimate us humans and our capacity for argument. In fact, if we were to all stand outside, facing east whilst arguing, I would venture to say that we could turn back time. Never underestimate the power of puff or the gift of gab or the heights of hypocrisy or the depths of dung…

By hillbilly ragger

July 18, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this

Sheets, folks.

By CommunistAJC

July 18, 2008 11:59 AM | Link to this

Bosch, My bad, mutli million dollar house. Al Gore hasn’t made his money in government money? Really? News to me because he came from a political family and has spent his entire life in politics. I actually do care where my money goes and would rather put my money in private companies to develop alternative fuels than government. Government is crap when it comes to getting things done. Private companies would do a much better job than government. That is why we have phones, cars, computers, and health care.

By @@

July 18, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this

To be perfectly honest, I’m disappointed that Bush, McCain, Robertson & Gingrich have succumbed to the “global warming” hysteria in spite of the opposing opinions.

I dislike Al Gore because he’s a Big Ballin’ Crybaby out to boost his marbles by exploiting his ACORNS.

Be sure and catch the enviro-weenie who thinks it’s great you’re paying high gas prices ‘cause it serves the enviro-weenies’ agenda. He thinks it’d be even better if you were paying $8.75 a gallon.

SING IT PAUL!

Now ‘scuse me while I dance………If you’ll be my bodyguard, I can be your long lost………?

dum dum dum dum……..dum dum dum dum

By theScientist

July 18, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

Computer models predict that by 2050, an avg. July in NYC will be 88 degrees instead of today’s 85 degrees. And of that 3 degree rise, .07 degrees can be attributed to man’s CO2 contribution.

So…, while we could stop the impact of man’s contribution(with great economic pain), we can not stop natural climate change. Nor should we want to…, right?

By Copyleft

July 18, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this

founder of the Weather Channel says global warming is crap. Is he an idiot? Nope.

Yep… because he’s talking about something he knows nothing about. The WC founder is not a climatologist. How many times does it need to be said?

Some people are qualified to comment on climate; they’re called climatologists. Policy institutes, bloggers, cable-news blowhards, and talk-radio drones are NOT. Sorry, but not all opinions are equal. Some are informed, and others are ignorant.

By Paul

July 18, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this

Midori 10:17

�Would you be more open minded if there were a different messenger?�

A wonderful question, one applicable to many, many situations. At both ends of the political spectrum.

Bosch 10:57

�cleaning up the planet, and developing cleaner fuels in the process to get us off foreign oil is good for all.�

Another gem of the day. Sometimes I like to tweak you by pointing out with whom you share an opinion. Same as with elements of the illegal immigration debate � care to guess? (Hint: initials are B-O-R). A rather pragmatic viewpoint, in my opinion.

May as well toss my hat in the ring. Here�s how I see it:

• Is climate changing? Sure. It�s the nature of climate.

• Is the earth, overall, getting warmer? Sure. Overall. On this cycle.

• Do mankind�s practices contribute the kinds of products that are thought by many to contribute elements that affect environment, with the end result being changes (macro temperature) that would not occur without these practices? Sure.

• Can we say with any reasonable accuracy what portion of the total change is caused by man�s activities and what portion is caused as a result of �nature�? Nope.

• Can we demonstrate what the specific effects on Earth�s temp will be by specific activity changes by man? Nope.

• Are a lot of people concerned that embarking on a very expensive program of what many see as weather modification not give a firm assurance of a positive change? Yes.

• Does it matter? Not really � I think it�s the wrong question, the wrong presentation. As you said, Bosch, much of what is attributed to driving climate change are, in fact, pollutants. Byproducts of our lifestyles. By itself, would we be better off not introducing large levels of pollutants into the environment? Sure. Would reducing these amounts because it�s the right way to care for the environment also have the effect of reducing the items many think cause/contribute to global warming? Sure. So treat it as a secondary benefit.

• So going to environmentally clean power sources, developing alternate transportation policies to get us off oil, especially foreign oil, can and should be done regardless of one�s position on global warming. Because the expected results should satisfy both camps.

By Wild Bill Hiltner

July 18, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this

Jay, Jay, Jay, Jay - playinge semantics once more, aren’t you. First, I must commend you that this global warming argument is far better for you than last year’s “the surge can’t work” argument, if only because the timeframe for reconciling your view with the truth is far longer. There is, save a few fruitcakes, no one who does not believe in “global warming” or for that matter “global cooling.” Both are part of both the historic record and G-d’s natural plan. What is at issue is the earth’s self correcting mechanism that has made (and I believe will continue to make) the global warming and global cooling cycle components of nature. But, as always, your arguments are always best when built on the twin piers of limited disclosure of facts and an almost Clintonesque (what is is?)reliance on pure semantics. The “It�s going to be hotter, it�s going to be hotter sooner in the year than it was in the past” bogeyman to which you point to scare the liberal sheeple, is horrifying in your simple semantics, but less so when one understands that the author means 2/10ths of a degree hotter two weeks earlier. I, for one, don’t deny global warming, I just understand the historic record and in the absence of information (whether presented by you, Algore, or one of the other enviro-chicken littles) otherwise, believe that this too shall pass and the earth shall self regulate its temperature.

By CommunistAJC

July 18, 2008 12:10 PM | Link to this

Copyleft, Uhhh, I’d listen to the founder of Weather Channel over a dirty politician any day. I guess since a lot of Climatologists say that global warming is a scam then it is because you say that they have the final say? Your argument doesn’t make a lot of sense. Doctors make mistakes all the time in misdiagnosing patients. I’m a well-educated person so I’d appreciate it if you didn’t insinuate that I am ignorant. I can think for myself and have come to the conclusion that Al Gore is a phony. Man has zero control over the world and it is very arrogant to think so. By the way, Al Gore is not a Climatologist so that debunks your argument for the founder of Weather Channel.

By Copyleft

July 18, 2008 12:18 PM | Link to this

And if Al Gore were claiming he had evaluated the evidence himself,, rather than simply reporting it, you’d actually have a valid argument. He hasn’t.

Al Gore may or may not be a phony—but it doesn’t make the slightest difference to whether the science is valid! If Jerry Falwell had suddenly decided that evolution was a proven fact, he’d have been right… no matter how much of an ignorant hypocrite he was on every other issue.

Spokesmen don’t matter to the underlying truth. That’s the point I’m making. Trying to undermine the SCIENCE of global warming by sniping at one of its popularizers reflects a profound ignorance of how scientific knowledge is superior to opinion. Taking shots at a commentator won’t change anything; the facts are what they are, and the people who UNDERSTAND those facts have spoken.

Your opinion, my opinion, Sean Hannity’s opinion… none of them matter. The point is settled among people who know what they’re talking about. All that’s left is deciding what to do about it.

By Midori

July 18, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this

Paul,

the big difference is the right’s abysmal track record.

just what have they been RIGHT about?

By CommunistAJC

July 18, 2008 12:29 PM | Link to this

Copyleft, I watched “An Inconvenient Truth” and the title alone suggest that it is THE TRUTH. He has and does go around promoting it as fact and scientific truth. Where are you getting confused? Just wondering. By the way, what scientific degree do you hold?

By Goldie

July 18, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this

Private companies would do a much better job than government.

Good point, Communist… if only many “private companies” would cease their polluting ways and clean up their messes without gov’t interference and enforcement. Who’s to stop the industries from continuing to dump into our rivers and streams, or belching noxious fumes into our air? You really believe that private companies will always do the right thing and clean up their mess without having taxpayers getting involved?

By Copyleft

July 18, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this

Commie, Gore was reporting the truth, with exhaustive sources and citations of the experts who provided his facts.

The WC Founder was spouting off a relatively uninformed OPINION based on nothing but his own amateur and superficial estimation of what the data “might mean, maybe… gee, if only I knew somebody who understood this stuff and already agreed with me.”

Do you see how one is more credible than the other? And more importantly, do you see how the statements of the actual climatologists are the ONLY rational way to evaluate the issue—no matter what various laymen say for or against it?

By Goldie

July 18, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this

He has and does go around promoting it as fact and scientific truth.

Communist— Maybe if you really were paying attention when you “watched” Gore’s documentary, you’d know that he was using data from the world’s scientific community… but it’s so hard to pick up those small details, I guess, when you’re mind is already closed to receiving any new data?

“The scientist from Exxon says global warming is bogus, so that’s who I’m believin’!” — is that how your argument works?

By Paul

July 18, 2008 12:43 PM | Link to this

Midori

Let me make sure I understand - if a messenger is from the “right” (we’ll leave open what that means) it doesn’t matter, as any message he/she would present would be incorrect?

Seems to me what you’re referring to is made up mostly of opinions - it’s a political philosophy - and I think it’s problematic to label someone’s opinion as “wrong.”

How about the idea gov’t agencies/programs should be examined to see if they’ve outlived their usefulness and should be retired? It’s a plank in McCain’s platform. Also pretty much a reintroduction of one of Pres Carter’s programs.

How about the idea of uniform mileage standards for all vehicles, not special exemptions for certain classes of heavy consumer vehicles? I believe it was a quite liberal Democrat who killed that idea.

How about faith-based organizations delivering services to the private sector, in conjunction with Federal Agencies? If you’d like, you can consider it before Sen Obama made essentially the same proposal. Which then begs the question, was the “right” right? (in the concept - tinkering with regulations doesn’t obviate the concept).

By Paul

July 18, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this

Copyleft

Some excellent points there. Problem is, the spokesmen can do a lot of damage to the credibility of the cause. Think all those evangelical ministers or Larry Craig.

Many have doubts as Mr. Gore championed the cause, proposed specific actions, then formed an investment group with three quarters of a billion to profit from the technologies he advocated. He may be a true believer, he may have elements of a right wing neocon capitalist in his character, but even that was a bit much for many on the Right.

But it’s still a good point. Take Mr. Gore out of the picture completely, and with what are we left?

By Bosch

July 18, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Sometimes even blowhards like O’Reily can surprise you!

Communist et.al,

I’ve said many times I don’t have a problem with domestic drilling, but no more building of coal burning plants - it doesn’t make sense to keep doing the same thing.

Drill away, i say, but in the short term, conservation and if any new power plants get built, nuclear, solar, or wind - or fat burning, it matters not to me.

I don’t agree that we should totally depend on private corporations to develop and maintain power plants or anything else, neither do I think the government should be total responsible. A hybrid of both. We’ve seen through Big Oil companies what you get from the private sector. And I agree that the government is too slow and too partisan to be trusted as well.

I know this is a big dream of mine, but damn, can’t people just do the right thing? I know. I know. Just plain silliness.

Back to the basement. Damn, it’s like the movie Ratatouille down there. I just wish those rats would cook me something good!

By CommunistAJC

July 18, 2008 1:47 PM | Link to this

Goldie, Closed minded? It’s a propaganda film just like all of Michael Moores films. And I love it how if someone like me doesn’t agree with you I get called a nazi, a bigot, small minded or just plain old stupid. Thanks for judging me. Makes me feel great. Jerk.

Copyleft, Al was bringing in the truth? He also claimed to have invented the internet. How am I supposed to believe a delusional individual who has never had to work for anything in his life? A man who doesn’t practice what he preaches. We’ll just have to disagree on Mr. Gore. By the way, if you read my past postings then you will see that I am all for new fuels. I just don’t like people like Al Gore shoving his info down my throat.

Bosch, Never said you did have a problem. Glad we can agree on something.

By Earl E

July 18, 2008 1:51 PM | Link to this

Salmon return to their birth streams, spawn and die. Bears eat the carcass and scatter the remains up in the forest.

Turns out that salmon are a rich source of nitrogen to the forest. Now we have dams and the streams are cut off from the returning salmon.

No more salmon, no more forest. Could it be any simpler?

Yes.

Man has little effect on his inner-caveman.

By Bosch

July 18, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Who cares who it is that puts up the money? Like I said earlier, if Rush or Bill-O put up the money, I’d have no problem. It’s the fact that it gets done.

Like you said, if it were anyone but Gore doing it, I don’t think the naysayers among us would have a problem. Like Hillary, Gore just brings out the worst in opinions.

T. Boone Pickens? He was the major financier behind the Swiftboaters. I have a huge problem with that, but if he puts his billions towards helping the planet, I can let by gones be by gones. Do I trust him? No way. But like Gore, people will be keeping their eye on him and start crying foul - actually people like Pickens and Gore are at a much more disadvantage, people don’t trust them, but they’ve got the money.

Communist AJC,

You’d be surprised what we could agree on. I try, but not always, to look beyond the rhetoric.

Right now I do have a problem. Cleaning out the basement. I keep “taking breaks” - it’s a little overwhelming.

By GodHatesTrash

July 18, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this

I think KKKommunist thinks the Weather Channel guy invented the weather.

Moron.

By CommunistAJC

July 18, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this

GodHatesTrash, Your name says it all. Look in the mirror you troglodyte. KKK? Thanks for illustrating my earlier point about crack heads such as yourself. Haven’t been to any rallies lately but I’m sure you have. Weather Channel inventor guy probably knows a hell of a lot more about weather than you do about being a human being. Go back to serving burgers at Burger King. While your at go clean the vomit off the floor in the mens room.

By Bob B

July 18, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this

Formal letter to UN secretary:

http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/LetterUNSecGenBan_Ki-moon.pdf

Dear Secretary General Ban Ki-moon,

The UN Climate Change Panel must be called to account and cease its deceptive practices - Policies based on false science must be ended

We, an independent group of experts in various aspects of science and the environment, ask you to redress the lack of scientific integrity of the UN�s Climate Change Panel (IPCC) and to stop them making reactionary and futile �Climate Change� recommendations that hold back the developing world.

As you read this, policies that you endorse are already causing misery and starvation for the world’s poor.

On the 14th of April this year some of us wrote to the Chair of the IPCC, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, copied below and available on the UN CAPSA site (ref E), asking him to present clear and graphic evidence of the theory that carbon dioxide (CO2) drives global temperature. We pointed out that no such evidence exists and offered charts and references that refute the man-made global warming theory.

g, and (ii) A geological (Greenland ice core) chart of polar climate covering the last 10,000 years (Ref B) which shows that while CO2 levels have been rising, temperatures have been falling since the Bronze Age around 4,000 years ago (see page 2).

The assertion that the recent rapid rise of CO2 is unique and dangerous is both deceptive and irrelevant because CO2 does not drive the world’s climate. Claims that such rapid rises have not happened before are not supported by ice-core or other geological records (ref C).

Either the IPCC is simply failing to notice these gross discrepancies or it is consciously evading or covering-up observations that challenge its theories.

By SaveOurRepublic

July 18, 2008 4:35 PM | Link to this

Greenmailer tycoon T.Boone Pickens is always in it for his own gain$, irregardless of what (partially correct) spin he puts on his ads.

He is supporting man-made/caused Global Warming fraudster Al Gore for energy czar if Globalist Elite puppet (#2) “Bacrock Obummer” wins the Presidency…

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/no200807184628.php

By Dwigt

July 18, 2008 4:41 PM | Link to this

To summarize other comments:

Fact: Bears eat beets. Bears, Beets: Battlestar Galactica.

Therefore, global warming is [real/false].

By Eisenhower

July 18, 2008 5:42 PM | Link to this

Actually, bears (black, that is) prefer corn to beets simply because corn beats beets, in a black bear taste test, two to one. Then, the black bears generate CH4 and CO2, both of which are greenhouse gases. The moral: eat more honey because there’s plenty to go around since the black bears are eating corn instead.

By Truth March

July 18, 2008 5:46 PM | Link to this

Wrong, Ike, the bears are stealing picnic baskets.

By Eisenhower

July 18, 2008 6:22 PM | Link to this

Does the park ranger know.

By Hillbilly Deluxe

July 18, 2008 8:15 PM | Link to this

Which one of y’all is going to step up and inform the bear what he can and can not eat?

By Taxpayer

July 18, 2008 9:19 PM | Link to this

I do it all the time. Dang black bears.

By Bob B

July 19, 2008 1:24 PM | Link to this

Global cooling for the next 20-30 years is predicted due to the recent shift in the Pacific Decade Oscillation (PDO)

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/WashingtonPolicymakersaddress.pdf

By silencedogood

July 20, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this

The theory of AGW (Anthropogenic, or human caused Global Warming) rests on two fundamental scientific assumptions: 1) A doubling of CO2 (expected by the end of the 21st century) will directly increase global temperature by 1-1.2C. 2) This 1-1.2C increase will result in “feedbacks”, such as increased water vapor, that further increase the temperature upto a total increase of about 4.5C.

The first assumption is pretty much basic science and has been tested and confirmed in laboratory experiments. The second assumption is more tenous because the feedbacks are complex, and can not be modeled in laboratory experiments, which would require duplicating the entire earth land/sea/atmosphere climate system. While it is fairly straightforward to assume that warmer oceans and atmosphere will result in increased water vapor, a positive feedback, how much will this increased water vapor result in increased cloud cover, which is a negative feedback.

Enter computer models called General Circulation Models (GCMs). Using GCMs, researcher’s attempt to write incredibly complex mathematical formula that represent all of the intricate workings of earth’s climate, and then by varying different assumptions, see what happens.

It is very important to understand that most of the theory of AGW is based on the results of these computer models predicting positive feedbacks, and that without these computer projected positive feedbacks, the 1-1.2C temperature increase resulting from the direct forcing assumed for double CO2 would be fairly benign, perhaps even beneficial.

As a computer programmer who has spent 25 years developing computer models for industry, I am very skeptical of the skill (ability) of these computer models to accurately represent the climate system and therefore to accurately predict future climate. My skepticism is based on several issues, not the least of which is the basic idea that anything as complex as earth’s climate system can be accurately modeled.

Computer models for forecasting weather have an entirely different mathematical basis than climate models, so it is not accurate to simply say that because we can not accurately forecast the weather more than a few days into the future, we can not, therefore, forecast the climate 100 years into the future. But it is accurate to compare the complexity of weather and the complexity of climate and to draw inferences from our inability to develop accurate weather models.

Secondly, as a computer model programmer, I know first hand the challenge of building complex computer models that are not biased. If I program a computer to predict that the sun rises in the east on Monday through Friday, and in the west on weekends, then my forecast will show that the sun rises in the west every Saturday and Sunday. Of course the skill of this model would be easy to determine, because the sun never rises in the west, and this is easily verifiable. But if I do not have mehods to falsify (verify) my forecasts, then such biases can masquarade as valid real world assumptions, which brings me to my next criticism of AGW derived from computer models.

We are being asked to make huge and potentially destructive policy decisions on the basis of these computer models, and the developers of these computer models maintain that they can not be falsified until possibly 2030 or 2050. In my work developing computer models for industry, I can safely say this would never fly in the business world. I would never induce a corporation to pay me hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars for one of my models unless I can prove that my model accurately forecasts the future. There are two basic ways of validating a computer model. The first is through “hindcasting”, which means running the model for a past period and obtaining results that match what actually happened. If a model fails to hindcast it has almost certainly been falsified. But if a model accurately hindcasts, it has not been proven accurate, because almost by definition, the model was developed based upon relationships that were derived from the past data, and therefore is likely biased. To demonstrate this concept, imagine that I am writing a model to predict the outcome of U.S. presidential elections. The fact that the model can hindcast the results of all presidential elections from George Washington to G.W. Bush with 100% accuracy does not necessarily mean that the model has any skill in predicting the next election, simply that it has accurate knowledge of what happened in the past.

If you look at the original NASA AGW computer model forecasts (HANSEN 1988) based upon 3 different levels of CO2 output, current temperatures are below all three of those forecasts, including the lowest forecast which assumed no CO2 increase after the year 2000, which as we know, has not happened. From a stastical standpoint, this model has not necessarily been falsified, but its accuracy is so close to falisification that no corporation I know of would use such a model for any decision making process.

Additionally, the most recent computer model projections as presented in IPCC 4 are currently running at or near falsification.

Link: [http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ninety-month-trends-ipcc-ar4-2ccentury-still-outside-%c2%b195-uncertainty-bands/](http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ninety-month-trends-ipcc-ar4-2ccentury-still-outside-%c2%b195-uncertainty-bands/]

Given that the models upon which the AGW theory is based show little if any skill at predicting the future, it seems quite dubious to me that all of the derivative conclusions of AGW, such as increased hurricanes, drought, sea-level rise or kidney stones, are very much to worry about.

By silencedogood

July 20, 2008 1:52 PM | Link to this

Link: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ninety-month-trends-ipcc-ar4-2ccentury-still-outside-%c2%b195-uncertainty-bands/

By Bill

July 20, 2008 11:11 PM | Link to this

Jay, AJC actually pays you to make an @$$ of yourself with these idiotic columns? Why don’t you halp the world out of this “global warming” problem by getting rid of your car, air-conditioning, heating and electricity hookup? Oh wait, you just want to dictate how everyone else should live their life. I’m going to let my car idle an extra 5 minutes tomorrow to see if I can’t help the earth’s temperature to kick it up a notch. Its been kind of cool lately don’t you think?

By Ozonator

July 21, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this

“By Ozonator — July 18, 2008 5:43 AM”

The continuing global warming �hoax� predicted by me in previous posts has met successfully several requirements for mastery of spinning chunks of CO2 teratogenically bonded with male reduction radio rays from LABI Limbaugh and his boy Ann Hannity.

�Hurricane watch issued for parts of Texas, Mexico 7/21/2008, 1:08 p.m. CDT The Associated Press� � http://www.nola.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/national-107/1216654461149660.xml&storylist=national

By Ozonator

July 22, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this

How LABI Limbaugh will kill 20 - 40 extra Americans (Mexican and US) by insisting flooded streets and downed power lines are part of the global warming hoax with the willing accomplices of master debaters of Marc �Sith apprentice to Evil Inhofe� Morano, �Jack� Lord Monckton of �peter� Brenchley, Marc �American Stinker� Sheppard, and the Ann Coulter without the Adam�s Apple - Sean �eugenics� Hannity.

�Story #3: Hurricane Poses Crisis for Drive-Bys … RUSH … I, ladies and gentlemen, have been tracking the progress of Tropical Storm Dolly, which is soon to become a hurricane.� It might reach a category two with 90-mile-an-hour winds before it strikes … the Texas-Mexico border … � But here’s the problem … this is made to order for the global warming crowd … Even though it’s you a little squat Podunk hurricane, it wouldn’t be happening without global warming� (�Stack of Stuff Quick Hits Page�; Mr. Rush �Chemical LABI� Limbaugh of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity - extremist Republican and Christian corporate lap dancers - downer cow media outlets of ESSO plagiarism; prison escapees from Planet-Star Wormwoody Jenkins - screwed General Motors now working on Scooter Store; rushlimbaugh.com, 7/21/08).

By Penis-Enlargement

July 22, 2008 11:23 PM | Link to this

Do u think its nice way to define? you should take care of some things in future posts.

By Acomplia

August 17, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this

Lovely post. Please add my email address to your list and email me the updates if possible. I always like to read your blog and comment on it.

By Sacramento Electrician

August 22, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this

I think its perfect. But my opinion is still you need to think on your comment.

By Sacramento Electrician

August 22, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this

I think its perfect. But my opinion is still you need to think on your comment.

By Penis Enlargement

August 26, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this

Well I think you are genius and the post is marvelous.

By Aviagra

September 7, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this

I loved the post. I think your thinking is nearly matching the great sukrat’s cocept.

By сайдинг

September 7, 2008 11:08 PM | Link to this

0nСпасибо за интересную информацию!.6w Буду рад, если посетите мой сайт.! сайдинг канадский 3w установка сайдинга 5b Удачи