http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050

In reference to the first quoted skeptic (who also apparently doesn't think much of the link between lung cancer and cigarette smoking):

http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

huh?

As Jim poined out, very very few glaciers have increased in size recently - the vast amjority have receded. The few that _have_ increased, have done so b/c of shifts in prevailing storm tracks and other such effects.

Glacial retreat is merely one effect of global warming - and is only one piece of the total evidence. There are numerous data, including sea surface measurements, depth measurements, and atmospheric measurements. We have the extraordinary CO2 series from Mauna Loa, we have fossil ice cores, and more.

nota posted an extremely brief but quite accurate summary - altho it is not completely established that we are in a solar minimum.

What is particularly humorous here is the pontification on highly technical matters by people who have NO knowledge of the area nor apparently any background in the natural sciences.

These are not policy questions. They are facts. Policy is certainly involved as we decide how much of our national resources to devote to this area and how much should go into research rather than into fixes. Or how much research should go into fixes.

Jim - here's one from the Nati'l Labs for you: a college buddy of mine (materials scientist, or as I insist on calling him - a metallurgist) was a bomb maker at Lawrence Livermore. For a while, he was working on giant solar boiler using Na. The project eventually went away.

A valid policy question is whether Congress should allocate tax dollars to revive that project; or take the same $$ and study which cities are most in need of sea walls. If you live in Miami, or New Orleans, or lower Manhattan, then you are going to be very very interested in sea walls.

However, new energy sources are a longer term solution - sea walls only solve a small part of the problem.

IF you guys want to debate, that is where you should expend your energy -- not in railing agianst established scientific facts, doubted only by Fox News and a few other biased sources.

Here is a challenge if you think otherwise: post the citation to one scientific paper stating that we are not experiencing global warming. That means a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal -- not ruminations by Lord Mountbottom that so and so might not be true. Not comments froma comedian like Rush Limbo -- a scientific paper.

nynor - Jim is drawing an analogy to the popular misconceptions of the Dark Ages, and to the opposite ways of thinking that form the basis for Modernity.

Sell it somewhere else RWebb.

I have enough BS in my life already.

The only place man made global warming has been established as a scientific fact is in the minds of left wing moonbats. Almost 64,000 scientists have signed papers recently to this effect. Algore has perpetrated a hoax on fools. From freon to manbearpig, fools have been duped in an attempt to increase govt control. The sooner you bail, the less foolish you will look.

I forgot to add that since they have no valid arguments, they rely on name calling and conclusory statements.

So, Al Gore is highly technical?

"Mr. Gore's high school performance on the college board achievement tests in physics (488 out of 800 "terrible," St. Albans retired teacher and assistant headmaster John Davis told The Post) and chemistry (519 out of 800 "He didn't do too well in chemistry," Mr. Davis observed) suggests that Mr. Gore would have trouble with science for the rest of his life. At Harvard and Vanderbilt, Mr. Gore continued bumbling along.

As a Harvard sophomore, scholar Al "earned" a D in Natural Sciences 6 in a course presciently named "Man's Place in Nature." That was the year he evidently spent more time smoking cannabis than studying its place among other plants within the ecosystem. His senior year, Mr. Gore received a C+ in Natural Sciences 118.

At Vanderbilt divinity school, Mr. Gore took a course in theology and natural science. The assigned readings included the apocalyptic, and widely discredited "Limits to Growth," which formed much of the foundation for "Earth in the Balance." It is said that Mr. Gore failed to hand in his book report on time. Thus, his incomplete grade turned into an F, one of five Fs Mr. Gore received at divinity school, which may well be a worldwide record."

He was looking for MBP!

It has been "theorized" that as well as rising average temperatures, the loss of the protective ozone layer will increase incidents of skin cancer in humans.
http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1217711345.jpg

FWIW, and I don't know how many of you have ventured either side of the arctic circle but the permafrost, for a hundred miles south, have been melting and causing problems for at least 10 years. I'm speaking to points north of Fairbanks. The Chugach still have snow on them which isn't usual or unusual but what is unusual are temperatures above freezing, not much but, for longer periods during the year. This is what is understood as cooling vs warming...more warming then cooling. But then, Mule already knows this. Sorry to be so redundant.

Pish posh. Science journals are the refuge of leftwing moonbats who couldn't get a real job so they sit and play with test tubes all day like some sort of pyrex Barbie playhouse.

Next thing you'll want data sets. And statistical analysis. And lack of hyperbole. Won't someone think of the hyperbole?!?!?

Algore is thinking of the analases and the hyperbole!

So what is the primary cause of ozone depletion? Is it gaseous fluorocarbons or is it a weakening of earth's magnetic field? ...or manbearpig catch-all (CO2) ? :cool:

Science News recently did an article on this. Seems the main issue was the new release of methane from permafrost due to trapped plant material and its global consequences. Methane is 18x as destructive as CO2.

So, you're saying, they can't know that "semi-experts' can't know...:rolleyes:

seriously, guys like you pontificate all over this, claiming to know, and get pissed if anyone (w/o equal or better papers) challenges Anything you say. You continually shout out your "semi-expertise" and demand (the lesser) people listen (and not ask Q's)

The thing is, there has likely been global warming AND global cooling w/in our lifetime. Yet, some ninnies are fixated on there being only one truth . .. one trend; that of man caused the planet to warm. . .and that because man is causing warmth Man must be controlled (by the experts, of course) for the betterment of global temperature. <--don't be a doofus.

One thing is certain. It's America's fault. Socialism will fix it! Morons!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bush's socialism or Obama's?

It's going to be really embarrassing for the global warming theologists in a couple decades.