Vin Suprynowicz is talking from a position of total ignorance.

Try this for a more balanced view:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Cooling

sincerely,
David

david,

I believe that at the core Vin asks an important question:

If man caused global warming is happening, why isn't it getting warmer?

Until those who fret about climate change answer such basic questions, people will continue to doubt them.

Another interesting, and I think basic question is:

Why if these same scientists freaked out about global cooling in the 1970's did they change to global warming in the 2000's?

Alas though, it seems that such simple questions are never answered by those who claim global warming to be an indisputable fact. Instead hype and rhetoric seem to be the norm.

M

Ms Milliscent

A nice article but i seemed to miss yet again ( as i always seem to ) the point . Perhaps i am just so damn stupid.....but how does the sun factor into global warming.....seems it is a a minor player in all this from most of what i read....but when i think of its role , i cannot help but wonder........what would the climate be with no sun??? Apparently it doesnt do near as much as humans.
I guess it is a mute point.
bec

I think the most salient observation is, that regardless of in what direction the global climate is moving, up or down, the suppressed premise is not what is best for globe, but how can "those in charge" exploit the complexity of a situation to gain the most political clout. They may not be unique in this sense, but the new administators are complete ideologues and what is actually occuring (climatically or otherwise) will not have a substantial effect on what they believe to be the case. 'Twas ever thus.

The only thing ignorant is ignoring that global warming started whent the glaciers retreated from as far south as South Carolina and it has nothing to do with man made carbon deposits. Truth is an inconvenient thing......but then if we looked at reality, those who want government to dominate every thing in our lives would have no futther purpose...The only thing dominant I would like in my life is Milliscent.....thank you very much....

bec,

Alas, I think that the sun and patterns of nature must be ignored by those who seek to control others via the 'crisis' of 'global warming' because for whatever reason the sun and patterns of nature are not prone to irrational feelings of guilt.

M

shonin,

Your point is very well made, and you are of course correct.

Organizations who argue 'the crisis' of 'global warming' do so because it is a huge fundraiser for them.

Politicians who propose massive 'solutions' to 'global warming' do so because it increases governmental, and ultimately their power.

Of course, there is also a large band of morons claiming to be scientists in the mix.

Lest it be thought that I don't do my homework, I did read the link provided by david.

The very first 'scientist' mentioned in the article, in fact, according to the article, the first guy who raised alarm about climate change due to 'greenhouse gasses' was Paul Ehrlich, moron in chief.

I have, in the past, read some of Mr. Ehrlich's books, and I must admit they are extremely compelling to read. Nevertheless, they are also always wrong.

I wonder, why if the 'scientist' Ehrlich is wrong so very often he is still taken seriously?

"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish."
-Paul Ehrlich, 1970

"The death rate will increase until at least 100 to 200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years."
-Paul Ehrlich, 1970

"In the 1970's the world will undergo famines, hundreds of millions of people (including Americans) are going to starve to death."
-Paul Ehrlich, 1968

"'Smog disasters' in 1973 might kill 200,000 people in New York and Los Angeles."
-Paul Ehrlich, 1969

"By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth's population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people."
-Paul Ehrlich, 1969

"By 1980 the United States would see it's life expectancy drop to 42 because of pesticides, and by 1999 it's population would drop to 22.6 million."
-Paul Ehrlich, 1969

It does not help ones case when articles are given as reference in which Mr. Ehrlich is 'scientist' #1.

M

bdenied,

And I would be most pleased to be that dominant force in your life! Alas though, it seems that Mrs. Bdenied does a fine job keeping you on edge!

Lake Chelan is a huge recreation spot here in Washington State. Beautiful warm summers, beautiful warm water. People travel over there to enjoy the heat and the sun. Alas, Lake Chelan was carved by a glacier.

M

I have a good friend who is a new-age, crystal worshipping, new-hippie, and constantly harangues me about global warming. After ten years of telling me that all scientists agree, and that the evidence is "irrefutable", he's finally conceding that perhaps, just perhaps the solar activity might be contributing to the warming & cooling cycles.

He still can't explain to me why global warming leads to cooler temps, though...

There have been ice ages and exteme warm periods on Earth before we all began to drive huge SUVs and left the lights on in an unuccupied room of the house. The audacity of people who promote the idea of using only one sheet of toilet paper per ah ... you know, is appalling.

I am not a wastrel. It costs me to use resources, and I care about not leaving my trash now and for the next generation.

However, putting up with the proposed "solutions to global warming" is like putting up with religious zealots: there is no rational discourse. They are way too far gone for reasoning.

President elect Obama is nobody except an accomplished politician. If latching on to the Religion of Global Warming and Carbon Credit will enhance his power, then he will do so. You, people, who were dumb enough to vote him into office, don't bitch when your lifestyle ends in the toilet. You will be paying for his lifestyle, and the ones who chose to follow him as their personal messiah.

It is a shame that we all will have to pay for it.

tom,

I think that people must like to feel guilty about some huge 'sin' and then have the ability to make penance and receive forgiveness for that 'sin.'

This process certainly drove countless millions to our churches for the last two thousand years.

Today people can feel guilty for their share in 'killing the planet' then attend a rally or write a check as a form of penance for that sin, receiving forgiveness and acceptance from others in the group.

That is the only possible reason I can see for the fact that our nation is so much cleaner today than it was in the 50's and 60's, yet that progress is never acknowledged.

Certainly there are ecological problems facing us, and certainly we all need to do our part to improve things. That however is no excuse for refusing to make note of the progress that has been made already, and admitting that things are improving.

A true environmentalist must also, in my view, admit that big government is not the solution to environmental problems. The Soviet Union and East Germany were the ultimate big governments, and those two nations experienced shocking levels of ecological destruction under communist rule.

M

Susan's pet,

It sounds as if you and I think alike.

When I built my studio I made great efforts to build it as green as possible. It is extremely environmentally friendly both in it's construction and it's use.

I do believe that we all have a responsibility to be good stewards of the land, stewards for those who come after us.

That said, I do not believe that we need to return to the dark ages in order to protect our planet. I firmly believe that progress is for the good and I am deeply disturbed by those who wish to turn back the last thousand years of human progress.

M

Dear Lady,

I appreciate your approval of our similar thinking on this subject.

On another subject, I would love to be a guest in your studio, with my wife in presence and enjoying it. You sound like a delightfully sensuous lady of the slightly (but deliciouly) sadistic side.

Please don't take this as a "come-on". It is simply an expression of my "Admiration of brains and beauty, and knowing what to do with it."

Susan's pet,

Ah, I have done a number of such scenes, and they are always wonderful fun.

Sometimes the lady will watch, other times she will prefer to join in. Occasionally they both choose to serve. Whatever the case may be, it's always great!

M

Ms Millicent

" al gore won the nobel peace prise for his work on " globel warming " hold back your laughter , and remember that these are the same folks that gave the peace prize to yasser arafat.

bec,

I'm surprised that Mr. Gore didn't win a prize for his work 'creating the internet.'

M

Hello,

Ms Milliscent wrote:

>Organizations who argue 'the crisis' of 'global warming' do so
>because it is a huge fundraiser for them.

Let us not discount the possibility that both goose and gander
are interested in either golden eggs or "sauce".

To demonstrate the point. Just one quote from a long history of
climate change denial at:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

"A survey carried out by the UK's Royal Society found that in
2005 ExxonMobil distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society
said 'misrepresented the science of climate change by outright
denial of the evidence'.

My personal memory of both the science and the denials in the
last 35 years leads me to conclude that a lot more mischief has
been perpetrated by those denying the truth.

If you want a potted history of the subject of Global Warming
try:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

where it states that "The greenhouse effect was discovered by
Joseph Fourier in 1824 and first investigated quantitatively by
Svante Arrhenius in 1896."

You will find the article covers both sides of the argument in a
balanced way and gives you quite an extensive history which
brings you pretty much up to date. It is of course by no means
complete and I'm not vouching for it's total accuracy.

However the reader is able to verify for themselves the sources
and citations, which is more than is usually the case for the
rants and blogs of the climate change denial merchants..

>Lest it be thought that I don't do my homework, I did read the
>link provided by david.

Perhaps I should have provided more links for you.

The link I provided was to a balanced and encyclopaedic
discussion of Global Cooling. I provided that link because I
felt that the link to a blog post that you provided offered no
useful discussion material, and quoted no verifiable sources,
and was simply an opinion, or rant, based on recent weather
which has little to do with either global cooling or warming.

>The very first 'scientist' mentioned in the article, in fact,
>according to the article, the first guy who raised alarm about
>climate change due to 'greenhouse gasses' was Paul Ehrlich

Actually that is a poor characterisation of what the Wikipedia
article says, which is....

"In the 1970s there was increasing awareness that estimates of
global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. Of those
scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st
century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most
papers predicted future warming. The general public had little
awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate, although Paul
R. Ehrlich mentioned climate change from greenhouse gases in
1968"

The fact that they detail that a person mentioned something
doesn't imply that his mention has any particular credibility.
Especially when their own link describes him as a butterfly
expert and population alarmist.

>It does not help ones case when articles are given as
>reference when Mr. Ehrlich is 'scientist' #1.

That is inaccurate.

He is not quoted by me or Wikipedia as scientist number one.

Wikipedia describes him like this:-

"Paul Ralph Ehrlich (born May 29, 1932 in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania) is a renowned entomologist specializing in
Lepidoptera (butterflies). He is best known as a human
overpopulation alarmist"

When an encyclopedia tries to give a potted history they try to
cover all the verifiable information that they can quote sources
for. In this case their own link makes it clear that he is a
butterfly expert and alarmist not a climate scientist.

This type of link, being more informed and verifiable than rants
from ill informed bloggers, seems to me to be more useful as an
information source on Global Cooling.

Picking out one butterfly expert and suggesting he is seen as
number one scientist doesn't do your arguments any credit.

It was reported in documentaries on public broadcasting channels
as far back as the 60s and 70s that the alarm was first raised
elsewhere, but the details of such alarms were at that time in
secret documents provided to governments which that article may
not have access to.

The writers of the Wikipedia article may not have the same
memories as me. Since for me they are only memories and I cannot
provide the citations for you, they will have be seen simply as
my unverifiable "opinion" unless anyone else can provide current
citations of such government documents which I believe may exist
going as far back as the 50s.

>I wonder, why if the 'scientist' Ehrlich is wrong so very
>often he is still taken seriously?

I've been keeping tabs on the actual science, rather than
opinions, for well over 30 years, and I hadn't even heard of him
until you mentioned him. I didn't even take much notice of his
name in the article, and I doubt that he is taken seriously by
governments or scientists. He is a butterfly expert.

sincerely,
David

Mistress Milliscent

But he did win a prize, i do think that is the biggest joke of all, all for a trash movie that the british high court ruled couldnt be shown to school children without a disclaimer as to its accuracy. Alas here in the U.S.A we teach our children not to think for themselves but this is the facts. They eat it up and the " dark ages " yet again...whom ever would have thought it would start here in America.
I sometimes have to cry , for my country....and the ignorance i see.
bec

Mistress milliscent
Oh and i almost forgot...speaking of returning to the dark ages and total ignorance , and power by a few... i did here that the pope has made damage to the environment a sin... wonder who determines what " damage " is ???
Bec

This guy does not have the slightest idea what he is talking about, though it does not prevent him from having a narrowminded opinion of his own.

2008 being a colder year than the preceding ones does not disprove global warming, just like the 2nd of May being colder than the 1st of May does not disprove the existence of summer.

(I recommend looking at the first plot at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming to find out why that is.)

Note: I am certainly not qualified to have an opinion about the causes, effects or even the existence of the phenomenon in question. The same goes for Mr. Suprynowicz, but he doesn't seem to realize that.

david,

I said:

"The very first 'scientist' mentioned in the article, in fact, according to the article, the first guy who raised alarm about climate change due to 'greenhouse gasses' was Paul Ehrlich"

Then you said:

"Actually that is a poor characterisation of what the Wikipedia
article says, which is.... "In the 1970s there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. Of those
scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st
century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most
papers predicted future warming. The general public had little
awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate, although Paul
R. Ehrlich mentioned climate change from greenhouse gases in
1968" "

I did not poorly characterize my point. My point was simply to show which 'scientist' was first mentioned in the Wikipedia article. While it may be an easy cop-out to 'misunderstand' my point, I feel that I must set the record straight.

Paul Ehrlich is the very first 'scientist' mentioned in the article. Unless of course you or someone else has changed it in the meantime. I don't care to read it again.

You said:

"Especially when their own link describes him as a butterfly
expert and population alarmist."

Ah, let us be 100% clear here. It is true that Wikipedia describes Ehrlich as such. It does not however do so in the article you posted. That article (the one you posted) portrays him as a legitimate scientist.

I said:

"It does not help ones case when articles are given as reference when Mr. Ehrlich is 'scientist' #1. "

You said:

"That is inaccurate. He is not quoted by me or Wikipedia as scientist number one."

Again, you are intentionally clouding my point, attempting to mislead those who are following this rather strange conversation. He is the very first 'scientist' mentioned in the article. The #1 (first) 'scientist' talked about in the article.

You said:

""Paul Ralph Ehrlich (born May 29, 1932 in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania) is a renowned entomologist specializing in
Lepidoptera (butterflies). He is best known as a human
overpopulation alarmist" "

Again you are intentionally blending two separate and distinct articles. One on climate change, the other on Mr. Ehrlich. Your attempt to do so serves no point but to intentionally try and deceive readers here.

While it is true that Wikipedia describes Ehrlich as a butterfly guy, and an alarmist, the article on climate change does not. I must point out that it was you who placed the link into the climate change article, so therefore you were not confused between the two articles when you did so.

Wikipedia is a wonderful resource, but it is edited by everyone. Therefore it contains errors. You should not try to mischaracterize my points simply because you are upset by the fact that the 'scientist' mentioned first in the article you posted has been shown to be a fraud.

M

bec,

Never give up hope. The people of this nation have propelled themselves from nothing to greatness in a very short period of time.

The poorest of American's today lives better than Queen Victoria did in her day.

American technology has overcome each and every challenge placed before it.

No matter what problem our nation faces, we will together overcome it.

Optimism must be the watchword of the day.

M

bec,

Alas, religious leaders would say that my entire life is one of sin. I simply must ignore them.

M

anonymous,

Alas, that is what makes America great. We are all entitled to have our opinions, and to try and convince others of our opinions.

We need not all be correct.

We must simply hope that the decision-making majority is correct.

M

Hello,

Ms Milliscent wrote:

>"The very first 'scientist' mentioned in the article

No. That is totally inaccurate. Although I'll accept that
persons not used to an encyclopedia may not be familiar with the
conventions therein.

He may be the first "person" mentioned, but his mention is quite
specifically under "general awareness and concern", but he is
not credited there as a "scientist" at all. Science is discussed
in detail later in the page and by following many and various
links therein.

He is now also mentioned later in the page under "Pre-1970s"
concern, which surprised me as I don't remember that mention
being there when I last looked.

He is simply named as an author without any credit or stated
science qualifications either there or in the paragraph which I
quoted in full.

His name is a clickable link, so that those who don't know the
person concerned can click and find out more about him.

If he were important to the science of the issue, then his
contribution to it would have been expanded upon within the
article, as you will find is the case on Wikipedia, and
encyclopedia articles in general. It is obvious that as he gets
no scientific mentions at all he is irrelevant beyond the
specific issue of "general awareness and concern".

For the avoidance of doubt and the sake of accuracy, here is the
paragraph again, which is by the way, from the article I quoted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Cooling

and it is not from any other page.

The Wikipedia article in question says....

quote starts here

"In the 1970s there was increasing awareness that estimates of
global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. Of those
scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st
century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most
papers predicted future warming. The general public had little
awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate, although Paul
R. Ehrlich mentioned climate change from greenhouse gases in
1968" "

quote ends here

That paragraph is under the heading..

"Introduction: general awareness and concern"

As you can see, although "scientific papers" are discussed,
"Paul R. Ehrlich" is only mentioned with regard to the awareness
of the general public. His name is clickable so that those who
don't know he is just a butterfly expert and population alarmist
may discover that for themselves with one click.

>My point was simply to show which 'scientist' was first
>mentioned in the Wikipedia article.

And my point was that by giving him the credit of "scientist"
which Wikipedia does not give him, you were being misleading,
regardless of whether that was your intent.

He is a person, and his "science", is of the study of
butterflies. He is not a climate scientist. He is not quoted as
a climate scientist but simply as a person who brought the issue
to the "public" in his book "The Population Bomb" and out of the
murky area of government and scientific papers.

>While it may be an easy cop-out to 'misunderstand' my point, I
>feel that I must set the record straight.

I neither "copped out" nor misunderstood.

You were giving the false impression that the first climate
scientist mentioned in the article was "Paul R. Ehrlich" and
that was the misimpression and misunderstanding I attempted to
correct.

He is not the first scientist mentioned. Except of course that
his "science" is in the area of the study of butterflies.

>It is true that Wikipedia describes Ehrlich as such. It does
>not however do so in the article you posted. That article (the
>one you posted) portrays him as a legitimate scientist.

No it doesn't. It only names him as a person named "Paul R.
Ehrlich" in a section on "general awareness and concern" - no
more, no less. It does not "portray" him at all, in any way at
all until later where he is now described as the author of "The
Population Bomb". The clickable link is in the article I posted,
and it describes him for those who don't know who he is.

So only if a person had a preconception that "Paul R. Ehrlich"
was a scientist, could they "conclude" that from the article.
Although it is of course possible that a person could "assume"
he was a scientist.

>you are intentionally clouding my point, attempting to mislead

I'll ignore the insulting nature of that remark and just deal
with the allegation.

It is not my intent to cloud any issue. The reason I posted the
article link was because you posted a link to an ill informed
rant about weather as though it had anything to do with Global
Cooling.

I felt that those who wanted information on Global Cooling could
do a lot better than the ignorant clap trap spouted by "Vin
Suprynowicz". And they may be better informed if they started
at:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Cooling

>He is the very first 'scientist' mentioned in the article

No he is not.

>The #1 (first) 'scientist' talked about in the article.

He is not "talked about" at all. Simply named. It is a
dismissive aside at best.

>you are intentionally blending two separate and distinct
>articles. One on climate change, the other on Mr. Ehrlich.

One is a link from within the other, so they are not separate.

>Your attempt to do so serves no point but to intentionally try
>and deceive readers here.

Far from "intentionally" deceiving. I clearly stated that the
description came from a "link"

Here is what I stated again....

quote starts here

Wikipedia describes him like this:-

"Paul Ralph Ehrlich (born May 29, 1932 in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania) is a renowned entomologist specializing in
Lepidoptera (butterflies). He is best known as a human
overpopulation alarmist"

When an encyclopedia tries to give a potted history they try to
cover all the verifiable information that they can quote sources
for. In this case their own link makes it clear that he is a
butterfly expert and alarmist not a climate scientist.

quote ends here

I see no reason for your insistence that anything I wrote was an
attempt to deceive, which is not in my nature at all. It must be
clear that my phrase "their own link makes it clear that he is a
butterfly expert and alarmist not a climate scientist" is being
completely open that it was from a link.

>While it is true that Wikipedia describes Ehrlich as a
>butterfly guy, and an alarmist, the article on climate change
>does not.

The link is within the article as I clearly stated.

>I must point out that it was you who placed the link into the
>climate change article, so therefore you were not confused
>between the two articles when you did so.

Of course not. I'm rarely confused, and usually only when drink
has been taken. I'm quite clear that the article I posted did
not in any way give Ehrlich any credit for being a scientist in
any way whatsoever.

The only person who has has perhaps misunderstood, and therefore
perhaps unintentionally been misleading is you.

To suggest that I intended to mislead is needlessly insulting.

>Wikipedia is a wonderful resource, but it is edited by everyone.

The editing is no longer completely open.

>Therefore it contains errors.

Of course it does. But as I may have previously stated, they at
least give "links" and citations to verifiable sources so that
the reader can check for themselves on the accuracy or
otherwise. Something far more valuable than rants from
journalists which either deliberately or out of ignorance
misinform by confusing current short term weather trends with
the issue of long term climate change.

>You should not try to mischaracterize my points simply because
>you are upset by the fact that the 'scientist' mentioned first
>in the article you posted has been shown to be a fraud.

I'm not upset that "Ehrlich" may be seen as a fraud. I don't
care if he is a fraud or not. He is not someone I've ever heard
of until you mentioned him.

I am upset that people don't study the science and the issues,
and instead listen to crackpots, whether that be Ehrlich or the
crackpot you originally posted a link to.

It seems the strategy of those interested in climate change
denial of misdirecting folk is still succeeding. But that's only
to be expected after over thirty years of disinformation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

That saddens me.

sincerely,
David

Ms-Christine.com

Hello,

karl wrote of Al Gore:

>he did win a prize, i do think that is the biggest joke of all,
>all for a trash movie

I haven't seen what was obviously a populist movie as I was
already well informed, and didn't want or need to see a glossy
production rehashing the same data. But somebody has to make
Global Warming a popular issue as it seems that the public are
still as misinformed on the issue as ever.

>that the british high court ruled couldnt be shown to school
>children without a disclaimer as to its accuracy

It is certainly more than a shame that there were a few
insignificant factual errors. But the UK High Court actually
rejected a lawsuit by political activist Stuart Dimmock to stop
the distribution of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" to British
schools.

Justice Burton stated in his judgement:-

"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of
climate change in the film was broadly accurate."

He then listed 9 small details that were not broadly supported
by available evidence. Typically the "journalists" have
misreported this decision as nine scientific errors.

You can read the details here:-

http://tinyurl.com/ywmd94

and for more on those wicked journalists:-

http://tinyurl.com/9p5qjc

http://tinyurl.com/886qqm

>we teach our children not to think for themselves but this is
>the facts. They eat it up and the "dark ages" yet again

Far from dark ages, it could be a very light age. Action on
Global Warming could be very good for all our economies if it is
implemented sooner rather than later. There could even be an
economic boom to be engineered from it if one planned things
properly.

A place to start boning up on these issues is a recent report on
the BBC that the Economist Lord Stern says he is optimistic that
a global deal on reducing carbon dioxide emissions will be
struck under Obama.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/uk/7805595.stm

And if you want to know more on Lord Stern try...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_stern_report

start of a snippet....

The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is a 700-
page report released on October 30, 2006 by economist Lord Stern
of Brentford for the British government, which discusses the
effect of climate change and global warming on the world
economy. Although not the first economic report on global
warming, it is significant as the largest and most widely known
and discussed report of its kind.

Its main conclusions are that one percent of global gross
domestic product (GDP) per annum is required to be invested in
order to avoid the worst effects of climate change, and that
failure to do so could risk global GDP being up to twenty
percent lower than it otherwise might be.

end of snippet

If you read the article you will see that those percentages have
been revised as the actual warming data has got a lot worse
since 2006.

One little reported fact is that Global Warming would already
have been even more serious if we had not reduced the ozone
layer in the 80s which has helped to cool the world just a
little. We should recognise that Man could do stuff. We could do
a lot more if people were educated on the subject rather than
ignorant as the majority are.

Although our CO2 is somewhat important, Man's contribution to
warming is a minor issue compared with what we need to do to
ameliorate the effects and/or postpone the worst. There are some
fairly cheap things we can do. Even profitable and efficient
things we can do.

An interesting project that is showing viability, has food
production potential, would lower sea levels, and has good
potential for profit is one which involves making man made
rivers inland from the sea into desert areas. Think of the jobs
that could be generated.

For more see:-

http://www.seawaterfoundation.org/sea_about.html

or the article in the press at:-

http://tinyurl.com/89swjg

Global Warming would continue for a thousand years after man's
emissions had ceased altogether. That knowledge means we have no
choice but to advance technologically as fast as possible so
that we can find ways to fix the problem.

Those advances don't mean we have to bury our heads in the sand
and hold on to outdated and old fashioned dirty technologies,
but we should instead invest heavily into clean new technologies
and jobs. Many of the fixes that are already being worked on
would generate jobs and be great for our economies.

In my opinion America could become a leader on this, and
previous administrations have dragged their feet for far too
long.

sincerely,
David

Ms-Christine.com

Hello,

Tom Allen wrote:

>I have a good friend who is a new-age, crystal worshipping,
>new-hippie

I'm none of those myself, and I'm not a scientist either which
is why what I write later will not be science, but it may be
broadly true and/or help you to understand.

>After ten years of telling me that all scientists agree

Most do.

>the evidence is "irrefutable"

It is pretty convincing, but even if you don't want to believe
it is irrefutable, if your smoke alarm told you there was
something wrong, would you simply ignore it?

Or would you check for a fire?

If you found a fire, would you ignore it, just because someone
said it was a natural fire and not a man made one?

>he's finally conceding that perhaps, just perhaps the solar
>activity might be contributing to the warming & cooling
>cycles.

All scientists know that solar activity contributes. Which is
why that is already factored in.

>He still can't explain to me why global warming leads to cooler
>temps, though...

It has been properly and scientifically explained by better men
and women than me. Try reading some of the links on global
warming provided here.

But for a laymans view. Try an experiment at home.

Fill your bath with cold water and put a sun lamp in the room.

Drop a big block of ice into the water.

Now, is the water around the ice getting cooler than it was?

What effect on the air above the water does that have?

The ice melting into the oceans makes the sea colder in some
places and that affects the weather patterns. That will continue
until the ice runs out. If and/or when that happens then the sea
will warm up with no ice to stop it.

Imagine that the water, or the sand and shale beneath the ocean,
has gases that will be released when the ocean warming occurs
that will make the warming even worse. Massively worse. Then you
could reach a "tipping point".

That tipping point could be reached with our oceans, probably
after most of us are long dead of old age, but is that a planet
we should leave to the next generation?

sincerely,
David

Ms-Christine.com

Hello,

bdenied wrote:

>The only thing ignorant is ignoring that global warming
>started whent the glaciers retreated from as far south as South
>Carolina

Nobody doing climate research ignores the past. In fact it is by
researching the past and events like the Permian-Triassic
extinction event, that we now have so much knowledge about the
mechanisms in play.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event

That is just one event which has been studied. The ice cores
have told us much about the past warming and cooling, and even
the chemical conditions involved. This time our effect on the
pattern is measurable and known.

>and it has nothing to do with man made carbon deposits

Would it matter if you were right?

Your position is like saying that lightning caused forest fires
in the past, so man can't have caused a forest fire.

Clearly both phenomena could light a fire, and if they both did
that at the same time you could have a bigger fire to put out.

So, you might want to check whether you had provided enough
equipment for the fire service.

>Truth is an inconvenient thing

It is. But it's better to actually study the facts and find out
for yourself. Then you will have a chance to know the truth and
decide how best to deal with it.

sincerely,
David

Ms-Christine.com

Hello,

Ms Milliscent wrote:

>I believe that at the core Vin asks an important question

I think that at best he is blowing hot air to get web traffic.

>If man caused global warming is happening

I don't think it matters a lot whether one uses the phrase "man
caused global warming" or just "global warming" because to me,
if there is a fire in my basement I don't ask who lit it before
I try to put it out.

>why isn't it getting warmer?

What do you mean by "it"?

If you mean the global temperature. The answer is that it is
getting warmer. On a global basis the planet is on a warming
path.

If you mean the weather, then the answer is that climate change
caused by global warming doesn't involve constantly warming
weather.

The theorists reported in documentaries and literature over
thirty years ago that the climate change caused by global
warming would give us more drought, more flood, more wind, more
hot winters, more cold winters, hotter summers, colder summers,
in short more of everything and records continually broken with
extreme weather in both directions. The underlying trend would
be warming, but the model would include dramatic variations.

>Until those who fret about climate change answer such basic
>questions, people will continue to doubt them.

Sadly until the climate change denial people stop it and accept
that it's happening people will continue to doubt it.

>Why if these same scientists freaked out about global cooling
>in the 1970's did they change to global warming in the 2000's?

If it were true that "some" scientists freaked out about global
cooling in the 1970's and that they changed to global warming in
the 2000's, then a likely cause is that they finally realised
the error of their ways.

Another reason might be found here:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

A lot of sensible scientists have been right about global
warming since the 60s and 70s to my knowledge, some even
earlier, while some scientists have been wrong and have been
banging on about cooling.

>Alas though, it seems that such simple questions are never
>answered by those who claim global warming to be an
>indisputable fact.

Those questions were answered to my satisfaction in the 70s and
while it is true that there was a period from the late 70s to
the mid 90s when climate warming knowledge was conveniently
suppressed in the mass media, the governments have been working
in the knowledge of it's accuracy throughout, either that or
burying their heads in the sand.

Why they did so little for so long is the only question which
has yet to be answered to my satisfaction. One could surmise
that avoidance of panic is one reason for not telling people the
truth, the other reason for past denial may well be profit or
electoral success. Maybe people tend to shoot the messenger. (or
not vote for him)

sincerely,
David

Ms-Christine.com

David,

I remember well when President Clinton did his best to argue what the word 'is' meant when he used it to deny what everyone knew to be true.

Alas, that is what I thought about when I read your dancing around the word 'first.'

Mothers wisdom does not however change.

Our mothers taught us that we will be judged not only by our own actions, but by the actions of those we choose to associate with.

Dance around 'first' as desired, but I must continue to judge the content you provided links into by the lunatic it embraces.

M

Ms Milliscent

A good freind of mine often tells me that folks hear what they want to hear and not what is being said.
Our freind and faithful reader david wrote of nine small errors in al gores film.
Perhaps thats not too bad ... only nine "LIES" , but the rest was ok yes....except the fact that if those things are removed the whole of the argument falls apart.
Oh well , not the point i wished to make, but it seemed that the point most folks got , and i beleive what Vin was asking is ...how many times can one cry wolf??. And whom will put into effect the " plan " he speaks of.
For me , i dont care to debate " global cooling , warming" or if one cares to keep up with these pathetic attempts....now its just " climate change "
All on a planet that history has shown to be forever changing and very unstable.
I guess for me , i often hear folks say " but what will be left for the next generation"........I for one hope to leave them a legacy of freedom from tyranny , and the promise that they will get an education that allows them to see things , listen , and form their own decisions.
I would think it best , for any human being to wish to be free, with danger , than safe and enslaved , or if this planet is to burn up.....so be it....our children will be better off.
I think david misses the point, this is not about " climate change", it is about global governance by a few.
In closing let me just point this out ....Lots of critters have gone extinct on this planet due to changes ( Before Humans ), it could well be we go on that ride too.....but hell...lets enjoy it and be free.
karl

Ms Milliscent

With respect as always , and to all readers....a fun bit i came across that puts it best ( in my opinion )
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed ( and hence clamorous to be led to safety ) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H.L Mencken.
911- gobal climate change , nukes , " end of world " , i do think i will live free and take my chances.......thanks for the offer .....but KEEP YOUR FEARS TO YOURSELF !!!!.
I do think we will all do quite fine.
And if not , what will you say then???.....being you will not be here either.
Karl

Karl,

Thank you.

You are of course 100% correct.

The most important thing we can do for future generations is leave them a world free from tyranny.

That is what the men who founded the United States left those of us fortunate enough to live here, and we owe the preservation of freedom to those who will live here after us.

Nothing can be of more value than a legacy of liberty.

M

Karl,

Thank you for posting the quote from HL Mencken. I've long admired it, and it hangs on the wall in my office.

M

There's hot, and then there's ridiculous:-

http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/story/828238.html

Seattle breaks temp record as heat wave continues

http://tinyurl.com/m6jfj4

Sorry to repeat myself:-

The theorists reported in documentaries and literature over
thirty years ago that the climate change caused by global
warming would give us more drought, more flood, more wind, more
hot winters, more cold winters, hotter summers, colder summers,
in short more of everything and records continually broken with
extreme weather in both directions. The underlying trend would
be warming, but the model would include dramatic variations.

david,

No, I think that the truth is:

The people who thrive on 'crisis' declared that we faced a Global Warming Crisis. Get's em loads of grant money, and face time on the TV after all.

When that didn't pan out for them, they just changed the name to 'Climate Change.'

Of course the climate changes, it has done so throughout history. My very own Cascade Mountains were partially carved during the last ice age.

That doesn't mean that mankind has a damn thing to do with it.

That also doesn't mean that mankind can do anything to change it.

That said, I did realize that our very nice summer here this year would fuel the extremist legislators in their quest to destroy our economy and way of life in the name of stopping 'Climate Change.' That bugabbo previously known as 'Global Warming.'

M