Interstate 80 through Nebraska is closed today due to blizzard conditions.

We're having trouble focusing on global warming under these conditions.

Hmmmmm....The Polar Bears are adjusting well to their new surroundings at least.
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/T/d/1/gw_polarbear.jpg

Deane, you prove your ignorance with your post. Global warming does not mean it just gets warmer. Changes in the climate affect weather on both ends of the spectrum. The result of it is abnormal weather, which you just posted about.

What a maroon!!

"Changes in the climate affect weather on both ends of the spectrum."

How convenient.

That way, this leftist scheme can be pushed no matter what the facts are.

It reminds me of the punch line: 'Who are you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?'

Herb

It's not a shock that you'd ignore accepted scientific facts over your own version of fairy tales.

"...accepted scientific facts."

What an utter crock.

Contrary to your pals, the carbon jet-spewing Mr. Gore and Kennedy, no, the sky isn't falling.

Herb

As usual, you're in the ignorant minority of opinion. Have it your way.

And have it your way, whilst you follow, sheeplike, such hypocrites who don't practice what they preach.

Herb

Last time I checked, Gore and Kennedy aren't scientists. They are simply promoting the scientific facts as determined BY the scientists. So if you have a problem, forget about Gore and Kennedy, call out the thousands of scientists worldwide who agree with me and disagree with you. Again, you aren't able to live your life unless you invent your own set of facts and have a bogeyman to be afraid of and vilify. It clouds your judgment and makes you say stupid things.

So, ok. Now it is a matter of crediblity in deciding whom to listen. Just tell me who, specifically, is credible enough to believe. By name.

I googled " bush acknowledges climate change " and got these. Do any of these work for you?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/jul/06/usnews.development

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070929/ai_n21024421

http://www.futurist.com/2007/01/24/bush-acknowledges-global-warming-a-little-and -late/

Here's one for Nwokie - http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bush_acknowledges_existence_of

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/14/165235/227

Nwokie, my brother, where art thou?

Herb

He's resigned in disgrace so he doesn't have to answer for or explain his actions.

Herbie, you're practically alone on this one. I even showed you how your fellow Evangelicals acknowledge global warming. How soon you forget/ignore facts presented to you. Not only that, but clearly you didn't pay much attention in whatever schooling you had. The winter cold in itself is a natural event, as is the summer heat. Tell me, what is so fuc*ing difficult to understand about the long term effects of bathing the atmosphere with too much CO2 while at the same time cutting down the rain forests and eliminating G-d's natural CO2 absorbing mechanism? You claim to be learned and religious. Quite frankly, I'm beginning to think you are a total ruse. Like Nwokie. No spin here, Herb. No leftist overtones. Just simple science. Only Herb rejects science and the proof thereof. Not the right, not the Evangelicals, not the Republicans, although their agendas of greed and domination present a blind rejection of facts as well at least when pressed directly on the issue concede the basic facts of global warming to be true. You and the shrub. Oh, wait, even the shrub has hinted it may be to some extent true. Tell us, Herb, what it is about your idols and heroes that attracts you? Their phoniness? Their total lack of concern for anything other than their own greedy agendas? Tell us.

"What a maroon!!"

Vitalogy, I believe it moron. Maroon is a color.

Ever hear of Bugs Bunny?

My use of the word "maroon" is a quote from Bugs Bunny. Only a true maroon wouldn't know that.

Sorry, it's been a few years since I followed the gospel according to Bugs.

And remember, 'mud' spelled backwards is 'dum'.

"Just simple science. Only Herb rejects science and the proof thereof."

Wrong again.

George Taylor is a scientist and climatologist.

Herb

I have a cousin, who is by nature conservative albeit a moderate, who is a geologist professor.

He is often sought out when geological events happen in our region. He's a scientist of the highest caliber (sadly that part of the Taylor gene pool did not trickle down to me). He has spoken all over the world at geological conventions and universities.

I have asked him his thoughts on Al Gore's presentation. He agrees with Gore's message. He may disagree with his politics, but certainly agrees with his presentation of the scientific evidence.

Herb if you could get past your political bias about Gore and his lifestyle and look at the scientific evidence being presented maybe your " hear no evil, see no evil" look at climate change might be altered.

But I seriously doubt you have the capacity.

"Wrong again.

George Taylor is a scientist and climatologist. "

You are such a limited person, Herb. You can't cherry pick one view and give it the weight that the overwhelming majority of qualified opinions to the contrary deserve. Sorry, you are not convincing anyone about anything. Denial is your problem. A big problem. You will be hard pressed to cope with the future if you don't broaden your perspective.

From another thread, the following was posted by Andy about me:

"Your inability to process opposing views is your problem, not mine."


And in this thread about Herb:

"Denial is your problem. A big problem. You will be hard pressed to cope with the future if you don't broaden your perspective."


The liberals are so certain they are right they can't accept that someone else might be.

Don't feel singled out Andy, it's an across the board problem with liberals. You're just fitting right into the mold.

And yet Andy is right. How do you explain that?

So Herb, if George Taylor, and only George Taylor, says this is all a legitimate issue to be dealt with, then you will change your mind?

Deane and Herb are so dependent on pre ordained "molds" into which they must sort everyone with an opposing view it makes me laugh when I read most of their denial based writings.

Nowhere, Deane, have I expressed overconfidence. I, unlike you and Herb, do not filter out opposing views and quicklabel them like you guys do. I happen to be on the correct side when it comes to the existence of global warming. See, you two don't want to debate what to do about it because you clearly don't understand what is really going on with our planet in peril. Not because you don't have the acumen to understand, but rather because you are so steeped in your own narrow views as to prevent proceeding to discussions about solutions. You'd prefer to do nothing because you refuse to admit the obvious because you fear any and all solutions might cost you MONEY. Typical Republican greed on the right has dragged this country down so low it is not surprising to me that the U.S. is held in so much contempt around the world. Fortunately, the world knows it's the leadership that is defective and your constant siding with the status quo of the Bush rhetoric means you are both part of the problem, not part of the solution. Adapt or don't adapt, but telling us we're wrong is futile.

"The liberals are so certain they are right they can't accept that someone else might be. "

Substitute "Christian" for "Liberal" and what does that get you?

The difference, of course, is that there are science, facts and logic to back up belief in "global warming" (really anthropogenic climate change). And I'm not "so certain I'm right"... I just have confidence in the power of reason! The facts indicate it to be so, therefore I will believe it to *probably* be so, until new facts arise to indicate otherwise! That's how *reasonable* people think... using *reason*, aka *LOGIC*!

I was just having a discussion with a coworker today about how variations in solar activity, increased cloud cover due to jet travel and other human activity may be working to counteract the effects of greenhouse gasses.

Maybe God (or dumb luck) is working to save us from our own stupidity!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080502/ap_on_sc/on_thin_ice

"All the evidence points toward human-made changes at both poles, she said, a conclusion that "further depletes the arsenals of those who insist that human-caused climate change is nothing to worry about."

Climatologist Gareth Marshall of the British Antarctic Survey said that while the term global warming is widely used, things are more complicated at the regional level.

In the Antarctic, he explained, climate change strengthened winds blowing around the continent, helping trap colder air. But that will decrease in the future, allowing warmer conditions to begin, he said.

And, Marshall added, ALL STUDIES NOW SHOT HUMAN ACTIVITIES ARE THE DRIVERS OF CLIMATE CHANGE in the Antarctic.

And have it your way, whilst you follow, sheeplike, such hypocrites who don't practice what they preach.

So that would be DUHbya and Co....

The liberals are so certain they are right they can't accept that someone else might be.

Sounds a lot like DUHbya and Co. and the neo-CON kool aid drinkers you and Herbocrite are.....

Bash Bush.
Bash Bush.

Anything else in that bag of tricks?

Herb

Clinton Bash
Clinton Bash

Anything else would be NON neo-CON for you Herbocrite.

" Anything else in that bag of tricks? "

YEAH! ALL THE TIME! But you pretend not to see those posts.

They are simply promoting the scientific facts as determined BY the scientists.

And these scientists are ALL vying for EVERY funding dollar they can get.

And that's what it all boils down to. Dollars.

20+ years ago they were pushing a "Global Ice Age" because it was the popular thing to do.

They will swing their opinions and research the direction that gets them the most funding dollars, plain and simple.

The reason for the cold weather and snow is

Meteorologists: La Niña Likely to Continue Into 2008
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-10/2007-10-31-voa60.cfm?CFID=3031136 08&CFTOKEN=53774144

" And these scientists are ALL vying for EVERY funding dollar they can get.

And that's what it all boils down to. Dollars. "

So if I could prove to you that you are wrong, would you then change your mind about it? I can show you that you are mistaken. But I'm not going to do that unless it would mean anything to you, specifically.

CJ, from everything I've seen and read there is no proof positive that humans are contributing to the global warming.

Sure there are LOTS of theories from scientists (that are receiving federal funding by the way) but there is no 100% proof.

There are a lot of scientists that say we are not contributing to the warming.

I'll give you that we are polluting the heck out of things and that is where the real money needs to be spent cleaning that up.

I'm open to reading anything on it though.

That was extremely far from what I asked though.

I was willing to disprove that that " these scientists are ALL vying for EVERY funding dollar they can get. And that's what it all boils down to. Dollars." is a red herring that is untrue. Your assertion was that dollars clouds their scientific judgement. Absent that, they would be taken seriously and given credibility by you.

That, apparently, is not the case with you. I can prove to you that they believe what they say. But that wouldn't matter to you. So figure out what it WOULD take for you to believe what they say and tell me. I'll show it to you. You get to frame it any way you wish. You can make up all the rules and I'll STILL be able to show it to you.

Just fold and be done with it.

CJ- I love your style. Even though I believe climate change is certainly influenced by human actions, I can't wait to see what you have up your very open sleeve.

As do I!

I'm extremely curious as to whether CJ has done the work, is prepped and ready to go, or...

another path, like it being self-evident, therefore he's in the winning position, given he just works at it.

Or something else!

Either way, damn good approach man. I like it.

I haven't done the work. At least, I mean, I don't have any links copied and ready to post. I want to see that, if challenged, I can support my argument. Having stuff loaded and ready for bear would be unfair and not at all where I am coming from.

I will say that in the past, I had my OWN questions and looked to answer THOSE. But my questions are not the same as everyone else's. That is why I'd like to let Skybill frame his own argument and see if I can meet HIS level. It's not a higher or lower. It's just different criteria.

But then, if I do or can, to STILL deny it is truthful or factual will be - well - enough for me to know what kind of person I am trying to have a conversation with.

It's not a trap.

This is how people talk sometimes. Others just announce a position and then just decide that it all ends there. I hate that. That gets us nowhere on any level.

And it's not nice.

CJ, I misinterpreted what you were asking.

I thought you were asking that if you proved the global warming theory would I change my mind.

Sorry.

I'm sure that there are some scientists that actually believe what they are reporting.

However, to me it's like a particular company (any) sponsoring a survey/study and the results come out in their favor.

There is always the appearance of doubt.

Right. I agree. And if could show you that the appearance has been removed ( or was never in place to begin with ) would you give those scientists the credibility and believe what they are saying?

The climate is in a constant state of change, and drastic changes have happened over time. There is no doubt about the existence of previous ice ages, for instance. That being said, the only question left is whether human activity is accelerating climate change. At the very least, human activity has polluted the water and the air. So I have to ask, what is the disadvantage of using more eco-friendly energy? At the least, we clean our air and water, and reduce dependency on foreign oil. At the most, we prevent the acceleration of climate change.

" So I have to ask, what is the disadvantage of using more eco-friendly energy?"

The answer, so far, is " because the studies that claim to show proof that humans significantly contribute to Global Warming are tainted by money and cannot be trusted because of greed for money."

Or if you go back a few months or so, it was " Humans cannot have a significant effect on Earth. Those that think they can are arrogant! " Remember that classic?

The hits keep comin'!

" All efforts to invest in alternative energy sources are driven by a mistaken notion that they will work or that using anything but oil is a boondoggle. Here, have some ethanol."

....would you give those scientists the credibility and believe what they are saying?

I'd go with the credibility, but maybe, maybe not believe what they are saying.

For every scientist that says we are the cause of global warming, one can be found that says we aren't. (Maybe not exactly 1:1, but a substantial number anyway.)

At the very least, human activity has polluted the water and the air.

I agree 100% with this and I truly believe that we'd be far better off in the long run if we concentrated on this rather than global warming.

So I have to ask, what is the disadvantage of using more eco-friendly energy?

Nothing at all. Wind energy is a good thing. I don't really care if it kills a few birds. Let the folks that are worried about the wind generators killing a few birds sit in the dark!

Solar is a good thing, albeit expensive for what it delivers.

The dams on the Columbia provide a lot of energy and the Salmon can use the fish ladders. Build a few more dams.

There are lots of options.

I'm confused.

Then what is it exactly that you are opposed to?

Skybill, check out "Scientific Method" on google and you'll find out why its pretty hard for scientists to lie and get away with it. Among other things, experiments have to be able to be replicated by other scientists in order for any claim to be true.

This is not to say it doesn't happen, but one has to be particularly stupid to slant or falsefy data. With the Scientific Method, sooner or later you'll be exposed.

"For every scientist that says we are the cause of global warming, one can be found that says we aren't. (Maybe not exactly 1:1, but a substantial number anyway.)"

I'd like to see this backed up somewhere...

Chickenjuggler,
You pasted my question, but didn't answer it. Even if we assume that there is flawed data behind the global warming studies, I would still ask what is wrong with simply cleaning things up anyway? Cleaner air, cleaner water, less dependency on foreign oil... these are all reasons to look for alternative forms of energy. Although, the term "look for" is overused. It's used as if the government is hiring Lewis and Clark to look for the Northwest Passage. We have kind of been fed a line for the last few decades that alternative fuel is still far away, not yet capable of becoming a reality. Well, Honda is building zero-emissions hydrogen vehicles TODAY for use in Southern California. We could put a man on the moon 40 years ago, but we can't deploy hydrogen cars and fueling stations in all 50 states over the next decade? I think we can. It's just a matter of wanting it badly enough.

Nothing. And I am willing to spend the money as an investment. I am also not opposed to making mistakes in the researchof some of these ideas. Like Ethanol, for example. Yes, I believe it was worth a try. Now we see the cost involved and it's not efficient on very many levels. So I'd like to move on to something else as an eco-friendly source.

"For every scientist that says we are the cause of global warming, one can be found that says we aren't. (Maybe not exactly 1:1, but a substantial number anyway.) "

It's not even close. It's not that I disagree with many of the other points in your post, but this one is just inaccurate. The so called Imhofe list of 400 "scientists" was bogus, containing economists who have no standing in the science community.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/12/24/dont-believe-inhofes-hype/

"For every scientist that says we are the cause of global warming, one can be found that says we aren't. (Maybe not exactly 1:1, but a substantial number anyway.)"

If we take away the "scientists" who aren't really scientists at all, the ones who don't know what they are talking about, and the ones who's objectivity has been slanted by their personal beliefs, the ratio approaches infinity.

"There is no doubt about the existence of previous ice ages, for instance."

Au contrair- there are plenty of people (largely the same people who doubt anthropogenic climate change) who would say that there never were ice ages, and that geological evidence thereof is just God fucking with us! I mean, "testing our faith".

"Honda is building zero-emissions hydrogen vehicles TODAY for use in Southern California."

Not really.. they are only zero-emissions if you don't count the emissions generated in creating the hydrogen fuel.

Hydrogen isn't really an energy "source" at all.. it's just a means of *storing* energy. The energy came from somewhere else, in this case FOSSIL FUELS. It's all a shell game... in SoCal that's a good thing, because it means they can ship their car pollution somewhere else.

"There is no doubt about the existence of previous ice ages, for instance."

Yeah - and do you know what happened during those ice ages? MASSIVE deaths, extinctions and severely altered habitats.

If your point is that " it can't be stopped."- The what is being expressed is " I disagree." If your point is " Climate changes are of minimal effect." Then, well, again I disagree.

"It won't affect me in my lifetime so I could care less".

Probably the attitude most people have if they even think about it at all. If humanity does not start to protect this planets resources soon, it will only grow exponentially and to the point of being irrepairable.

"Soylent Green is PEOPLE"

" Maybe not exactly 1:1, but a substantial number anyway."

I would like to hear the minimum ratio in which you would say " OK - maybe I am wrong to believe what I believe about Global Warming."

10:1 ?

25:1 ?

CJ, I don't know if there is any way to actually put a true ratio on it. I was just using that as an example.

There are plenty of scientists that believe the global warming being caused by humans is junk science.

This is the reason I don't buy the global warming scam:

The sun behaves approximately like a black body of radius rs=6.599 x 105 Km, at a temperature of Ts=5,783 K. The radiative flux at the sun's surface is given by the expression óTs4, where ó is the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant (5.6704 x 10-8 Wm2K4). Flux refers to radiation per unit area. Thus, at the Earth's distance from the sun, res=1.496 x 108 Km, this flux is reduced by the factor (rs/res)2. The Earth's disk has a cross section, acs=ðre2, where re is the Earth's radius (6.378 x 103 Km), and thus intercepts acsóTs4(rs/res)2 radiation from the sun. In order to balance this intercepted radiation, the Earth would warm to a temperature Te, where óTe44ðre2 = acsóTs4(rs/res)2. This leads to a solution Te=272 K.

Clouds, which obviously require an atmosphere, and other features of the Earth reflect 31% of the incident radiation. Taking this into account reduces Te to 255 K.

Just kidding! I don't have a clue what all that means. I just thought it looked impressive!

However, here are a few of the links that I found doing a Google search;

http://www.oism.org/pproject%20

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

http://www.renewamerica.us/analyses/050317hutchison.htm

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?c34061bf-3155-41ea-a90d-42b45e1e55f0

http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/global-warming-religion-or-science

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/feb_2003/global.htm

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/mar_2003/global_warming.htm

Anyway, these are just a few that refute the global warming issue. I know that there are tons that support it too.

Who do you (generic) believe? Since there is no 100% proof everyone has to make up their own mind.

LMAO.

You're right. That does look impressive.

But if the premise is: " Using science to prove Global Warming as a theory, is junk. And to prove it, I will use scientists." seems, uh, wrong. I mean, you either believe science is a reputable source, or you don't. So if you do, then how many scientists would I need to show you that feel, yes FEEL, they have proven it? I mean, at some point, would you not believe them? What if were 1000 to 1? THEN?

Now go ahead and get caught up on the word " feel " and miss my point entirely.

CJ, I think we're beating a semantic dead horse here.

I don't know what it would take to change my mind.

I'm not into "the sky is falling" theories.

I go with the natural cycle theory.

While I don't think that we humans are contributing enough to cause the warming, I'm not naive enough to think that we aren't polluting the planet. I just don't buy that it's what is causing the warming.

" I don't know what it would take to change my mind. "

Thank you for saying that. I don't either. But if I am going to use science to measure it at all, then I'm going to go with the VASTLY predominant wisdom that shows we are contributing the the degree suggested.

FWIW here's a report that says we will cool until about 2014 then may warm by about .3 deg C.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/30/eaclimate130.x ml

Great.

Of just about all positions I happen to hold, my belief that Global Warming is going to be VERY bad is, by FAR, the #1 thing I hope I am wrong about. And if I am, we will ALL celebrate. I'll take blame, eat crow, wear a placard admitting how wrong I was, admit how right others were and seriously reconsider future science based things.

I would give a LOT to be proven wrong through actual experience. A lot.

You can do a google search for "alien abduction" and find hundreds of stories of otherwise credible people claiming to have been abducted by aliens. Just because some nut posts stories on the internet doesn't make it credible or factual.

"While I don't think that we humans are contributing enough to cause the warming"

Just on the outskirts of Minneapolis (about 35 miles NW of) there is this coal burning plant that can be spotted from Mars, nevermind a jetliner landing in MSP. The eruption of Mt. St. Helens has nothing on this spectacle. We're killing the planet, dude.

(Yes, MSP is the favorite hangout of ID Republican Sen. Larry "I'm not gay" Craig.)

Tap Dancin' Larry Craig!

An investigation by the NASA inspector general found that political appointees in the space agency's public affairs office worked to control and distort public accounts of its researchers' findings about climate change for at least two years, the inspector general's office said yesterday.

The probe came at the request of 14 senators after The Washington Post and other news outlets reported in 2006 that Bush administration officials had monitored and impeded communications between NASA climate scientists and reporters.

James E. Hansen, who directs NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and has campaigned publicly for more stringent limits on greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, told The Post and the New York Times in September 2006 that he had been censored by NASA press officers, and several other agency climate scientists reported similar experiences. NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are two of the government's lead agencies on climate change issues.

From the fall of 2004 through 2006, the report said, NASA's public affairs office "managed the topic of climate change in a manner that reduced, marginalized, or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public." It noted elsewhere that "news releases in the areas of climate change suffered from inaccuracy, factual insufficiency, and scientific dilution."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/02/AR2008060202698. html?nav=rss_politics

HEY...HO....HUMANS HAVE TO GO.....

Who can stop de-evolution of the human race?
Look at you, Corporate America, you're in disgrace
Globalize; cigarettes, business jets, you love it
Maximize; but you can take your bottom line and shove it

Gotta get away (gotta get away)
Gotta get away, but I need a little help tonight
What 'ya gonna say (what 'ya gonna say)
What 'ya gonna say when you never even seen the light
See the light

Corporate America, look out, look out
Corporate America, who's gonna save us, who's gonna save us now?

You and I; DVDs, SUVs and cyberspace
Flying blind, virtual reality is in our face
This Earth desecrated by the human race
Now what's it worth? When do we evacuate to outer space?

Corporate America, look out, look out
Corporate America, who's gonna save us, who's gonna save us now?

I see the future in the past, the reckless ride of modern man,
Just took the corner way too fast,
Flattened everything that stands
Fooled by the sales pitch for progress at a dizzy pace
We idolize the filthy rich for giving us synthetic taste
Computer calls, urban sprawl
Is the world a better place, is the world a better place?

Fare thee well, global extinction's forever
So what the hell, order your Mercedes in leather
Veal crates, ozone holes, and toxic waste
And don't count out religious hate
Who can survive this manmade fate?

Gotta get away
Gotta get away, and I need a little help tonight
What 'ya gonna say
Wha 'ya gonna say when you couldn't even see the light
See the light
Yeah