The Myth of Global Warming

SouthernDemocrat said:

His documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, is probably the best and most concise case ever given for the science behind this issue.

Click to expand...

If you're willing to stay awake through all of his biography interjections. :lol:

SouthernDemocrat said:

His documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, is probably the best and most concise case ever given for the science behind this issue.

Click to expand...

Ah, but here's the issue; Gore belongs to the climatologist society, one that is known for perspectives stretching no longer than a thousand years. The only branch that can truly be relied upon, are the paleoclimatologists. As one could argue, the true evidence will not be found in the air, but in the earth.

Geopraphists, geomorphologists and specialists of glaciers can tell you stories differing from the climatologists; through measuring O18, oxygen isotopes, in glaciers, we can in combination with statistics from analyzing the ocean floor determine that this is nothing but a natural cycle; we have been yet to even reach over any earlier peaks of temperature, even though the cycle is enhanced by the Earth's transgression into a eliptical course, as well as the expansion of our dying sun.

Never the less, Gore must indeed be honored, as he instead of the rest of the climatologist society chose to present arguments, instead of simply saying "no, you're wrong", and then dismiss the issue without evidence.

Deng for President said:

/political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

Click to expand...

WTF??? Dude, you do realize Deng was the Anti-Mao? He led a massive anti-maoist campaign throughout his rule in an attempt to diminish his mass popularity and excel his market-oreinated economic plans.

Of course, but I also know that it was brutal arms that kept him imprisoned and off the political stage until the trials of the gang of four. When he was released, he finally gave China the economical means it needed to survive in the modern world. My quotes aren't supposed to be related to my name in any matter.

Please pm me for comments like that, this thread is for debates concerning global warming.

Napoleon's Nightingale said:

If you're willing to stay awake through all of his biography interjections. :lol:

Click to expand...

I thought it made the film interesting.:mrgreen:


Duke

Deng for president said:

Ah, but here's the issue; Gore belongs to the climatologist society, one that is known for perspectives stretching no longer than a thousand years. The only branch that can truly be relied upon, are the paleoclimatologists. As one could argue, the true evidence will not be found in the air, but in the earth.

Geopraphists, geomorphologists and specialists of glaciers can tell you stories differing from the climatologists; through measuring O18, oxygen isotopes, in glaciers, we can in combination with statistics from analyzing the ocean floor determine that this is nothing but a natural cycle; we have been yet to even reach over any earlier peaks of temperature, even though the cycle is enhanced by the Earth's transgression into a eliptical course, as well as the expansion of our dying sun.

Never the less, Gore must indeed be honored, as he instead of the rest of the climatologist society chose to present arguments, instead of simply saying "no, you're wrong", and then dismiss the issue without evidence.

Click to expand...

If this is "nothing but a natural cycle", how do you refute this science?

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

Even the government acknowledges it:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/basic_science/


Duke

saggyjones said:

I didn't read your whole chain of posts, but did you know that plants can't take in all the CO2? More CO2 is just like humans having an abundance of food. Plants can't "eat" it all. If they could, there wouldn't be a problem with excess CO2.

Click to expand...

I said plants will be happier. There are countless published studies showing a substantial increase in plant growth rates when exposed to an atmosphere containing higher CO2 concentrations up to several 1000 ppm. In fact, some greenhouse operations purposely disperse CO2 inside the greenhouse to improve yields. It is called aerial fertilization, and it is one of the sources of data contamination when trying to use tree-rings as proxies for past temperature trends.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Therefore, we can definitively state today, as a result of this study and others like it, that our current warming is due to Greenhouse Effect Warming.

Click to expand...

As you stated earlier, or are you changing your position on this?

We also know that there is a direct correlation between Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations, and Global Temperatures as shown here

Of course, warm climatic periods are not always preceded by increases in CO2 concentrations, as other climatic forces can force climate changes as well. However, the trend is very clear. Absent other mitigating factors, such as orbital and or solar variations, increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations results in climatic warming. The causation is basic thermal physics, and the correlation is backed by multiple lines of peer reviewed evidence. Moreover, as sourced earlier, those possible mitigating factors have been ruled out by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program Study released last May.

Click to expand...

As you say, CO2 increased concentrations will lead to temperature increases, based on thermal physics. That gives the prediction of a 1 C temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 to 560 ppm. Glad that we agree on this.

If CO2 concentration increases lag behind temperature increases by hundreds of years, as ice core publishd data has shown, then the "other climate forces" you refer to cannot suddenly be discounted today. The physics is the same. I need to have a look at the climate science report you refer to before commenting on it, and specifically the studies referenced therein to support the conclusions of the report.

Regarding solar forcing, I am not sure what Scafetta and West paper you referred to in your earlier response, but in my copy they conclude in their abstract that up to 50% of 20th century warming can be attributed to a solar contribution. And because they use Moberg 2005 as a temperature proxy with which to correlate, this is probably on the low side.

Here is my take on things right now. I think we have some common ground here.

The vast majority of scientists believe that the Earth has warmed over the past 400 years since the end of the little ice age. This is supported by both the NAS report and the Wegman report.

The vast majority of climate scientists believe that AGHG emissions have made some contribution to the warming trend over the past 100 years, but the amount of contribution is not well understood.

A small number of vocal scientists have claimed at some point in the last 18 years (Hansen seems to have started the warming cycle hysteria in 1988) that AGHG emissions have been the sole cause of warming over the past 100 years.

A small number of scientists, a late night radio talk show host and a former U.S. Senator have attracted tremendous media attention, book deals and box office receipts with predictions of future catastrophes if nothing is done immediately.

People commonly point to funding sources for skeptics as a way to discredit their work. This line of reasoning provides no compelling scientific argument for or against the validity of the work. I have not heard the same complaints and discrediting of pro-AGW scientists who are funded by environmental groups, the Heinz foundation, insurance companies, the U.N. through the IPCC, etc. Why the double-standard?

Scientific consensus is no way to validate a scientific hypothesis, and our recent history is replete with terrible consequences caused by this. Scientific data that supports a hypothesis and is reproducible by others is usually the way science works.

Duke said:

If this is "nothing but a natural cycle", how do you refute this science?

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

Even the government acknowledges it:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/basic_science/


Duke

Click to expand...

Aha, but here's the issue: in no matter what source you may present here, there are none that actually be described as valid, less it's the IPCC reports.
Just because a few sites, not even founded by respectable geographical institutions able to deal with the full perspective of the issue are presented, this debate won't go away.

And please stop using "Wikipedia" as a some type of reference; a public site open to everyone isn't an acceptable source. It's called being critical of sources.

paminator said:

I said plants will be happier. There are countless published studies showing a substantial increase in plant growth rates when exposed to an atmosphere containing higher CO2 concentrations up to several 1000 ppm. In fact, some greenhouse operations purposely disperse CO2 inside the greenhouse to improve yields. It is called aerial fertilization, and it is one of the sources of data contamination when trying to use tree-rings as proxies for past temperature trends.

Click to expand...

Well then it's a real shame that we're all not plants, huh?


Duke

Deng for president said:

Aha, but here's the issue: in no matter what source you may present here, there are none that actually be described as valid, less it's the IPCC reports.

Click to expand...

Translation:
"Aha, but the problem is that your various sources present facts that I can in no way dispute, so I will be forced to deny the validity of scientific fact presented by a vast majority of scientists."

Deng for president said:

And please stop using "Wikipedia" as a some type of reference; a public site open to everyone isn't an acceptable source. It's called being critical of sources.

Click to expand...

The point is not the site, the point is the facts: Look at the site, see the facts, if you dare.


Duke

Duke said:

Translation:
"Aha, but the problem is that your various sources present facts that I can in no way dispute, so I will be forced to deny the validity of scientific fact presented by a vast majority of scientists."

Click to expand...

Or, perhaps this way:
"The problem is that whatever source the disagreers have ever produced has been questioned and deemed irrelevant, even though they are as justifyable as any source of the anthropogen side. Therefore it has after countless debates been decided that only sources conducted and recognized by any reliable government, institution or, preferably the IPCC (being the organ of the U.N.) can truly be trusted.

The point is not the site, the point is the facts: Look at the site, see the facts, if you dare.

Click to expand...

I've looked at the site, for my major term paper, for various earlier debates; the entire reasoning of the article is constructed on the same theories as the ones I am presenting. The only small part differing, is the one concerning human effect on the system, and that part isn't even strenghtened by anything resembling a graph, or various measurings either for that sake.

Though I myself tend to use multiple sources to gain an understanding of consensus....this sums the general results up nicely:

"The State of the Climate 2005 report summarizes global and regional climate conditions and places them, where possible, into the context of historical records. Descriptions and analyses of notable climatic anomalies, both global and regional, also are presented.

According to the Smith and Reynolds global land and ocean surface temperature dataset in use at the NOAA National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), the globally averaged annual mean surface temperature in 2005 was the warmest since the inception of consistent temperature observations in 1880. Unlike the previous record positive anomaly of 1998 (+0.50°C), the 2005 global anomaly of 0.53°C above the 1961-90 mean occurred in the absence of a strong El Niño signal. The record ranking of 2005 was corroborated by a dataset maintained at NASA, while United Kingdom archives placed 2005 second behind 1998. However, statistically, the 2005 global temperature anomaly could not be differentiated from either 1998 or any of the past four years. The majority of the top 10 warmest years on record have occurred in the past decade, and 2005 continues a marked upward trend in globally averaged temperature since the mid-1970s. Lower-tropospheric temperature was the second warmest on record, with northern polar regions the warmest at 1.3°C above the 1979-98 mean."

NCDC: Annual State of the Climate

European and U.S govenment agencies seem to be holding the most valid Data on Climate Change, and Human contribution:

"Greenhouse Gases

Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have historically varied20 as a result of many natural processes (e.g. volcanic activity, changes in temperature, etc). However, since the Industrial Revolution humans have added a significant amount of greenhouse gases6 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests and other activities. Because greenhouse gases absorb and emit heat, increasing their concentrations in the atmosphere will tend to have a warming effect. But the rate and amount of temperature increase21 is not known with absolute certainty. Changes in the atmospheric concentration of the major greenhouse gases are described below:

Carbon dioxide (CO2)23 concentrations in the atmosphere increased from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 379 ppm in 2005 according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) 2005 State of the Climate Report23, a 35 percent increase. Almost all of the increase is due to human activities (IPCC, 2001). The current rate of increase in CO2 concentrations is about 1.8ppmv/year. Present CO2 concentrations are higher than any time in at least the last 420,000 years (IPCC 2001). See Figure 1 for a record of CO2 concentrations from about 420,000 years ago to present. For more information on the human and natural sources of CO2 emissions, see the Emissions section6 and for actions that can reduce these emissions, see the What You Can Do Section24.
Thumbnail image of Figure 2: Atmospheric Concentrations of Methane in Geologic Time and in Recent Years25

Methane (CH4)26 is more abundant in the Earth’s atmosphere now than at any time in at least the past 420,000 years (IPCC, 2001). Methane concentrations increased sharply during most of the 20th century and are now 151% above pre-industrial levels. In recent decades, the rate of increase has slowed considerably (see Figure 2). For more information on CH4 emissions and sources, and actions that can reduce emissions, see EPA’s Methane Site7.
Thumbnail image of Figure 3: Atmospheric Concentrations of Nitrous Oxide in Geologic Time and in Recent Years27


Nitrous oxide (N2O)28 has increased approximately 18 percent in the past 200 years and continues to increase (see Figure 3). The present concentration of N2O has not been exceeded during at least the last 1,000 years. For more information on N2O emissions and sources, see EPA’s Nitrous Oxide Site 9."

Recent Climate Change - Atmosphere Changes | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Recent Climate Change - Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases in Geological Time and in Recent Years | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Deng for president said:

Or, perhaps this way:
"The problem is that whatever source the disagreers have ever produced has been questioned and deemed irrelevant, even though they are as justifyable as any source of the anthropogen side. Therefore it has after countless debates been decided that only sources conducted and recognized by any reliable government, institution or, preferably the IPCC (being the organ of the U.N.) can truly be trusted.

Click to expand...

So, what you are saying is that even though there have been hundreds of studies done by hundreds of scientists that prove human-induced global warming beyond a reasonable doubt, you'd rather shut your ears and pretend they don't exist, falling back on the IPCC, which states:

The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters.
A main activity of the IPCC is to provide in regular intervals an assessment of the state of knowledge on climate change.

Click to expand...

So, they're not scientists, they don't do tests, they meet once a year, and they don't draw conclusions. They just get evidence together.

Duke said:

If this is "nothing but a natural cycle", how do you refute this science?

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

Even the government acknowledges it:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/

http://www.pewclimate.org/global-war...basic_science/

Click to expand...

You never answered the question.


Duke

Deng for president said:

Aha, but here's the issue: in no matter what source you may present here, there are none that actually be described as valid, less it's the IPCC reports.
Just because a few sites, not even founded by respectable geographical institutions able to deal with the full perspective of the issue are presented, this debate won't go away.

And please stop using "Wikipedia" as a some type of reference; a public site open to everyone isn't an acceptable source. It's called being critical of sources.

Click to expand...

No, it's called being ignorant and only believing what you want to hear.

I just came to a realization, and that is:
What's the point of denying global warming?
It costs more to deny it, as shown by this excerpt from SouthernDemocrat's post on another thread:

SouthernDemocrat said:

So, if we do nothing, the eventual costs of unmitigated Global Warming will be up to 20% of GDP a year. However, taking action will only cost about 1% of GDP a year.

Click to expand...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...ppening-whether-conservatives-like-not-2.html

So instead of denying and arguing about global warming, we should save the money, solve economic problems, solve some foreign diplomatic and political problems, and clean up the environment by all agreeing and getting something done.

Duke said:

Well then it's a real shame that we're all not plants, huh?


Duke

Click to expand...

You know, plants have feeling too.

paminator said:

As you stated earlier, or are you changing your position on this?

Click to expand...

Actually, I misspoke, or I guess in this case misswrote. I should have said that we can definatively say that our current warming is primarily due to greenhouse gasses.

As you say, CO2 increased concentrations will lead to temperature increases, based on thermal physics. That gives the prediction of a 1 C temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 to 560 ppm. Glad that we agree on this.

Click to expand...

1. You are not taking into account Positive Feedbacks. For example, Artic ice cover declines, much less heat is reflected back into space.

2. You are not taking into account increases in Methane ppm, which also has a strong correlaton with economic growth since the industrial age.

3. We are expected to reach 560 ppm by midcentury, and over 800 ppm by the end of the century.

4. Asside from the from all that, you are using a very low estimate of C02 ppm and temperature increases.



5. You are not taking account that Earth's current climate is not in equalibrium with greenhouse forcing. Even if greenhouse gasses were completely stabilized, we would still warm another degree or so.

Climate commitment studies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If CO2 concentration increases lag behind temperature increases by hundreds of years, as ice core publishd data has shown, then the "other climate forces" you refer to cannot suddenly be discounted today. The physics is the same. I need to have a look at the climate science report you refer to before commenting on it, and specifically the studies referenced therein to support the conclusions of the report.

Click to expand...

Actually, usually CO2 concentrations precede temperature increases.
Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regarding solar forcing, I am not sure what Scafetta and West paper you referred to in your earlier response, but in my copy they conclude in their abstract that up to 50% of 20th century warming can be attributed to a solar contribution. And because they use Moberg 2005 as a temperature proxy with which to correlate, this is probably on the low side.

Click to expand...

And once again, you cannot have solar forcing as the current primary driver of global warming and also have a cooling stratosphere.

Here is my take on things right now. I think we have some common ground here.

The vast majority of scientists believe that the Earth has warmed over the past 400 years since the end of the little ice age. This is supported by both the NAS report and the Wegman report.

Click to expand...

Actually, today the vast majority believe we are now warmer than in at least 12,000 years, and one degree short of being warmer than at least the last 1 million years.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | World 'warmest for 12,000 years'

I don't think we are going to agree on this issue. However, say the Anthropogenic Global Warming people are wrong and in 50 years global temps are no higher than they are today. If we took action to curb emissions today, and as a result moved away from a Fossil Fuels based economy to a more sustianable one, what would we have lost? It would seem that the worst case scenario would be that we would just have a greener economy to show for it.

SouthernDemocrat said:

If we took action to curb emissions today, and as a result moved away from a Fossil Fuels based economy to a more sustianable one, what would we have lost? It would seem that the worst case scenario would be that we would just have a greener economy to show for it.

Click to expand...

Or, one could argue that seeing that both sides of debate agree on the fact of an approaching ice age, moving away from fossil fuels in order to save an ecological system which will become extinct due to these temperatures would be dooming the less economically developed nations, as fossil fuels are their only hope to strenghten their positions in order to cope with climate change. Converting to alternative energy would simply be too expensive.

Deng for president said:

Or, one could argue that seeing that both sides of debate agree on the fact of an approaching ice age, moving away from fossil fuels in order to save an ecological system which will become extinct due to these temperatures would be dooming the less economically developed nations, as fossil fuels are their only hope to strenghten their positions in order to cope with climate change. Converting to alternative energy would simply be too expensive.

Click to expand...

Which is why we have to find a low cost energy solution. Easier said than done though.

The February edition of Environment and Climate News has a report about a new non-partisan study that further demonstrates liberals are full of crap about there being a consensus among experts on global warming.

The non-partisan group is the National Registry of Environmental professionals.

Of 793 environmental scientists and practitioners...

-34% said global warming is not a serious problem.
-41% disagreed that warming trends are a result of human behavior.
-71% disagreed with the notion that Katrina had anything to do with human activity.
-33% disagreed that the U.S. government isn't doing enough.
-47% disagreed with Kyoto.


There's your "consensus of experts." :lol:

aquapub said:

The February edition of Environment and Climate News has a report about a new non-partisan study that further demonstrates liberals are full of crap about there being a consensus among experts on global warming.

The non-partisan group is the National Registry of Environmental professionals.

Of 793 environmental scientists and practitioners...

-34% said global warming is not a serious problem.
-41% disagreed that warming trends are a result of human behavior.
-71% disagreed with the notion that Katrina had anything to do with human activity.
-33% disagreed that the U.S. government isn't doing enough.
-47% disagreed with Kyoto.


There's your "consensus of experts." :lol:

Click to expand...

Environment and Climate news is a publication of the ultra-right wing Heartland Institute. Thus it is not a peer reviewed scientific publication, but rather, it is simply a propoganda rag.

Just the same, let's see a link to the study.

I just looked up your: National Registry of Environmental Professionals.

The website is here: http://www.nrep.org/

It is a scam. Kind of like those commercials for becoming an artist.

You are such a pathetic joke dude. You get on here acting like you are some expert, and you don't even know the science behind the issue. How about you look at what the National Academy of Sciences has to say on this issue, or the IPCC?

What is funny, is that you did not even read the site you quoted.

76% of environmental professionals consider it very important to include tighter controls on greenhouse gasses such as carbon and methane in U.S. Regulations.

NREP calls upon the President to broaden his approach from just saving a little oil, to building a plan that addresses carbon use as a whole.
The Federal government should also consider a national carbon trading system whereby carbon can be assessed value and be reduced through market forces;

CAFÉ standards should be increased for all categories of vehicles over time as the key is to have more cars using less oil;

Biofuels such as ethanol are important ingredients in diversifying our fuels, but they cannot be depended on to pick-up too much of the slack—there must be federal incentives given to more development of further alternatives;

Concentrate policy on less oil use, not more domestic production by abandoning ANWR drilling and reclaiming off shore oil royalties for alternative fuels.

Click to expand...

http://www.nrep.org/news.html

Global Warming – Existence, Causes

The existence of global warming today
·[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]82 percent of professionals report they think global warming is a real, measurable, climatic trend currently in effect.
·[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]66 percent respond that the rate at which global warming may be occurring is a serious problem facing the planet.
·[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]64 percent attribute certain phenomenon such as rising ocean levels, increased storm activity, severe drought, massive habitat loss, depletion of the Earth’s oxygen sinks, i.e. rain forests and ocean plankton, to the effects of global warming.
·[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]68 percent agree that global warming is a trend that must be addressed as soon as possible.

The causes of global warming
·[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]59 percent respond that current climactic activity exceeding norms calibrated by over 100 years of weather data collection can be, in large part, attributed to human activity.

http://www.nrep.org/globsurv.htm

Deng for president said:

Or, one could argue that seeing that both sides of debate agree on the fact of an approaching ice age, moving away from fossil fuels in order to save an ecological system which will become extinct due to these temperatures would be dooming the less economically developed nations, as fossil fuels are their only hope to strenghten their positions in order to cope with climate change. Converting to alternative energy would simply be too expensive.

Click to expand...

Nah, wouldn't be too expensive. Developing nations will benefit from the conversion. It will make them stronger.

Business there and here in the US will overcome problems with alternatives, and we'll all be better for it. Converting, when taken on seriously by private industry, will be a question of doing things differently, but businesses do that well when they want to.

These businesses apparently want to, and they're big time:


Many industry leaders have come to realize that such measures may be more an opportunity than a hindrance. The day before Bush's speech the chief executives of 10 corporations, including Alcoa Inc., BP America Inc., DuPont Co., Caterpillar Inc., General Electric Co. and Duke Energy Corp., called for mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/17433-washington-wakes-up-global-warming.html#post477218

aquapub said:

This statement:

"The Earth is getting hotter because of human emissions."

...cannot be supported by evidence. It is as subjective and comically unscientific as saying:

"If humans would stop breathing hot air into the climate, there would be less hot air encountering cold air and there would be less hurricanes.

Total BS. The reason there is so much disagreement on global warming is because there are so many logical leaps required to accept it.

But liberals tell us we have to pass hundred-billion-dollar suicide pacts like Kyoto (while complaining about fiscal responsibility) because they can find scientists who agree with them...just like they could find scientists to agree with them about breast implants causing cancer, about PCBs, Alar, DDT, pesticides, and every other farce they've ever presented as gospel.

HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES WHY REASONABLE PEOPLE ARE LESS THAN CONVINCED:

-In January 2002, the journal Science reported the findings of NASA's Ian Joughin and University of California's Slawek Tulaczyk confirming that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is actually growing.

-One of the biggest periods of temperature increase in the Earth's history happened during the time of the dinosaurs, before humans were even here. Think about that.

-As noted by the journal Nature, Peter Doran of the University of Illinois proved that temperatures in Antarctica are actually increasing over the last 30 years.

-The intensity of the Sun's light significantly impacts the Earth's temperature.

Sun’s direct role in global warming may be underestimated

-Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund responds to the evidence being discovered in Antarctica by saying this:

"There is simply not enough data to make a broad statement about all of Antarctica."

:lol:

But there IS enough data to make broad statements about the entire EARTH? UN computer models are the kind of "hard evidence" liberals have to offer, but when conservatives challenge the blatantly unscientific nature of global warming charges, liberals refuse to even consider it...until evidence starts to disprove their charges...THEN, they can grasp the subjectivity issues and lack of data. :roll:

Newt Gingrich hit the nail on the head...We should try to minimize our emissions regardless, just to be good custodians of the Earth, but basing that on such a laughably unscientific bandwagon is not rational.

Click to expand...

I am not sure what Global warming has to do with being liberal or conservative. Of course you know best. Gosh, you pick and choose your arguments to suit you. Where is all that water going that is being melted from the Ross Ice Shielf? What is happening to the Glaciers that use to cover northern Greenland, and which is now barren ground for the first time in recorded history.

Since Bush came into office, and started giving grants to those who argue against global warming really makes me wonder about your arguments and the source of your information.

I am not an expert on Global warming, and I could be interpreting the evidence of disappearing glaciers, and to much Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as just Conservative or Liberal Misinformation as you do.

Somehow I think your arguments are being used to cover your investments,

Morrow said:

98% of the worlds glaciers are disappearing, but the two percent that grow, whose cause of growth can clearly be drawn to increased evaporation because of higher temperatures, must counter the entire body of evidence of Global Warming. Further more, demonstrating why 2% of glaciers grow is consistent with Global Warming is a liberal plot.

Click to expand...

Source? To claim this would mean that EVERY glacier in the world is accurately measured over a period of time to determine the growth pattern of EVERY glacier IN THE WORLD over a given period of time. If you can't show this to be the case, the claim that 98% if the world's glaciers are disappearing is absolutely WORTHLESS!

Science isn’t political! Do I mean that global warming, and evolution, and the earth revolving around the sun aren’t plots to piss you off, but are instead an attempt to explain a body of evidence in a unified manner? YES!

Click to expand...

Sure it is political. Funding for research is absolutely political, whether it comes from the government or is decide by committees in universities.

Additionally, there is not a debate! One or two people who refute global warming does not constitute a debate. There is a debate about the causes, but not about Global Warming. If you want I can go find one or two people with the proper credential for people like you who I can pay to claim that world is flat. They can write papers to disprove the ‘round theory’. Ridiculous!

Click to expand...

Sure there is a debate about Global Warming. Just saying it over and over again does not make it true.

Perhaps now you will attempt to discredit the scientific process. I would like to point out that everything used to make reading this post possible was developed adhering to the scientific process. AC current, Dams, Computers, Chips, PHP bulletin board and that dim light over your head all relied on scientific theories to be developed, or themselves incorporate scientific practice or theory into their design construction and/or operation.

Click to expand...

Gee, once upon a time, the good liberals of the world all embraced eugenics as a scientific fact! That was based on pseudoscience. The "evidence" for global warming is similarly based on incomplete evidence at best, and inconvincing "evidence" at worse. NO, computer models do NOT constitute evidence.

Politicians lie, including the Bushes. They lie to you and tell you that there is not such thing as Global Warming. They lie because their constituency wants them to lie. Their constituency doesn’t want to have to pay the money to deal with this problem. Money! That’s it, money! Then a few clever people like Rush figure out that if they refute Global Warming too, you’ll listen to them more because you need to believe that Global Warming isn’t real, because you don’t want to accept the fact your politicians lied, and you want to prove you’re a good little Republican. And what does Rush get out of lying?

Click to expand...

Well, I haven't heard Rush in years. However, please show me the evidence supporting your glaciers claim.